• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Cold War ...

You're projecting. Trump haters are the cult.


I didn't think you would deal with the real world.


Then why did Putin wait four years to move on Ukraine?

To be fair, Trump was just the man at the top. Trump's team outmaneuvered Putin repeatedly, also in Turkey and in Syria.

Nope, that title goes to his fanatical devotees who don’t have the brainpower to face up to how much he’s failed.....over and over and over again.

Because his little shadow war was working just fine and he didn’t NEED to invade outright. Duh.

😂

You shrieking “no no no Trump won” is not evidence of him “outmaneuvering” anyone.
 
I didn't think you would deal with the real world.
Says the guy that is constantly heaping praise on the worst president in our country’s history. 🙄
 
Then why did Putin wait four years to move on Ukraine?
This has been explained to you multiple times in multiple threads. You just don't want to hear it. But I will explain it one more time.

Putin has been trying to take over Ukriane's resources by means other than war for decades. Yanukovych was tossed out of Ukriane because Ukrainians realized that he was Putin's puppet and would simply hand over Ukriane's assets to Putin. Trump would have stood by and watched.

Paul Manafort BEFORE BECOMING TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER was working for Viktor Medvedchuk, the guy Zelenskyy has captured and is offering to trade to Putin in a prisoner exchange. Manafort has long been working for Russian Oligarchs loyal to Putin in Putin's efforts to take Ukraine assets by other means than outright overt military operations. Viktor Medvedchuk was the new tip of that spear after Yanukovych. Crimea was not an overt Russian military operation (the little green men) and he had been using the Separatists cover in the Donbas region.

As for those that still want to push the "nothing to see here" narrative regarding Putin and Trump and Manafort regarding the 2016 election, we are simply not all that STUUUUPID.

So the reason that Putin did not attempt to take over by military means with Trump in office is because Putin thought he could continue to pursue his goals in Ukraine by other means especially with a lapdog US President protecting his flank. Both Vlad and Donnie put a good deal of enthusiasm around a second Trump term. When that didn't happen, Putin grew impatient and thought his military assets strong enough and Ukriane weak enough for him to simply have a walkover into Ukraine, decapitate the government and take over the assets. whoops!!!

I am sure none of this is news to you. Dasvidaniya.
 
Last edited:
Says the guy that is constantly heaping praise on the worst president in our country’s history. 🙄
Since you claim he is the worst President in history, we all know you are unwilling to cope with reality.

BTW pointing out facts is not heaping praise.

This has been explained to you multiple times in multiple threads. You just don't want to hear it. But I will explain it one more time.

Putin has been trying to take over Ukriane's resources by means other than war for decades. Yanukovych was tossed out of Ukriane because Ukrainians realized that he was Putin's puppet and would simply hand over Ukriane's assets to Putin. Trump would have stood by and watched.

Paul Manafort BEFORE BECOMING TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER was working for Viktor Medvedchuk, the guy Zelenskyy has captured and is offering to trade to Putin in a prisoner exchange. Manafort has long been working for Russian Oligarchs loyal to Putin in Putin's efforts to take Ukraine assets by other means than outright overt military operations. Viktor Medvedchuk was the new tip of that spear after Yanukovych. Crimea was not an overt Russian military operation (the little green men) and he had been using the Separatists cover in the Donbas region.

As for those that still want to push the "nothing to see here" narrative regarding Putin and Trump and Manafort regarding the 2016 election, we are simply not all that STUUUUPID.

So the reason that Putin did not attempt to take over by military means with Trump in office is because Putin thought he could continue to pursue his goals in Ukraine by other means especially with a lapdog US President protecting his flank. Both Vlad and Donnie put a good deal of enthusiasm around a second Trump term. When that didn't happen, Putin grew impatient and thought his military assets strong enough and Ukriane weak enough for him to simply have a walkover into Ukraine, decapitate the government and take over the assets. whoops!!!

I am sure none of this is news to you. Dasvidaniya.
I have heard your conspiracy theory before. It even has some substance to it, but wind whistles through the holes.

One glaring problem is that Trump and Putin were not working on the same track, exchanging favors, or anything of that nature. Most often they were at cross purposes, such as in the Middle East.
 
Since you claim he is the worst President in history, we all know you are unwilling to cope with reality.

BTW pointing out facts is not heaping praise.


I have heard your conspiracy theory before. It even has some substance to it, but wind whistles through the holes.

One glaring problem is that Trump and Putin were not working on the same track, exchanging favors, or anything of that nature. Most often they were at cross purposes, such as in the Middle East.
Cross purposes in the Middle East? How so? If you mean Saudi and Iran, there is no way for either Putin or Trump to square that circle and neither party cared to either. If you mean the JCPOA, creating more angst for the US in the ME which is clearly what ripping up the JCPOA did works to Putin's favor, not ours. Trump set us right back to where we were in the 1950's with regard to Iran and I suspect it will be another 20-40 years to repair the damage AGAIN. If you mean Syria, we vacated Syria for the most part leaving the field to Russia in his support of Assad.

There is simply no way to point to the ME as a sign post for the dynamics between the US and Russia anyway. We have screwed up so badly and for so long in the Middle East that the country that consumes more oil and oil products than any other in the world no longer has a single reliable friend that matters in the ME. Saudi....NO, Iran.....NO, Iraq....NO, Yemen.....NO, Kuwait....maybe, who cares, UAE......maybe, who cares, Israel....not any more. Trump just put the finishing touches on it making sure Iran was reminded that the US could still no longer be trusted. Smooth Donnie....real smooth.

Oh and I forgot Libya...another NO, Lebanon and Egypt...two more who cares....it ain't 1970.
 
Last edited:
Cross purposes in the Middle East? How so? If you mean Saudi and Iran, there is no way for either Putin or Trump to square that circle and neither party cared to either. If you mean the JCPOA, creating more angst for the US in the ME which is clearly what ripping up the JCPOA did works to Putin's favor, not ours. Trump set us right back to where we were in the 1950's with regard to Iran and I suspect it will be another 20-40 years to repair the damage AGAIN. If you mean Syria, we vacated Syria for the most part leaving the field to Russia in his support of Assad.

There is simply no way to point to the ME as a sign post for the dynamics between the US and Russia anyway. We have screwed up so badly and for so long in the Middle East that the country that consumes more oil and oil products than any other in the world no longer has a single reliable friend that matters in the ME. Saudi....NO, Iran.....NO, Iraq....NO, Yemen.....NO, Kuwait....maybe, who cares, UAE......maybe, who cares, Israel....not any more. Trump just put the finishing touches on it making sure Iran was reminded that the US could still no longer be trusted. Smooth Donnie....real smooth.

Oh and I forgot Libya...another NO, Lebanon and Egypt...two more who cares....it ain't 1970.
Trump did not shred JCPOA. Iran already did that. Recognizing that JCPOA had already failed is a point in Trump's favor, but that is not something involving Putin to any large extent. Trump and allies effectively boxed in Iran, greatly reducing terrorist activity in KSA, Iraq, and elsewhere. Getting cooperation from both Israel and Saudi Arabia is an accomplishment by itself. It's hardly back to the 1950s but you say that as if it were a bad thing. You shouldn't.

You gloss over Syria, even though it was a major area of tension between USA and Russia. Russia can back Assad but Putin has no reach or leverage. Big win for Trump. You did not mention Turkey, but a lesser win for Trump.

If you mess up on the basics this badly, how do you expect to get anything right?
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy:

The Soviet Union dissolved on December 26th, 1991. Russia is not the Soviet Union, but they kept much of the Soviet nuclear arsenal and have continued to counter Western dominance, and a counter to Western dominance is a good thing. It'd be great if Western (and/or Global North) dominance would willingly change to a global cooperation paradigm AND if counters to the Western dominance paradigm didn't try to compete by using a similar but smaller domination paradigm. But they haven't, and that's led by the US. The domination paradigm is driven by the US.

Synnecrosis is a good word: the living together of two organisms in a mutually destructive relationship.

Be well and stay un-radiated.
Antiwar
Antiwar:

At their highest peaks the US nuclear stockpile was above 32,000 nuclear weapons (1967) and the Soviet stock pile was at 45,000 nuclear weapons (1986). Now both sides have about 4,000-4,500 active weapons and Russia has an additional 1700 decommissioned weapons which have not yet been destroyed. Neither side has held on to their huge Cold War stocks of nuclear weapons and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty brought stocks down to about 10-15% from their maximum levels.

I agree that Russia is no where near the strength of the old USSR, and therein lies the danger. Modern-day Russia is politically, economically and militarily weaker and far more brittle than the old USSR was and therefore in any serious conflict with a top-tier military power, Russia will be likely to use NBC weapons to mask and shore-up its weakness. That's the danger in this latest phase of the Russo-Ukraine War. The old paradigm of strategic nuclear weapons as a deterent and as weapons of last desperate resort is no longer valid in Russian thinking. In fact the Soviets always intended to use tactical nuclear weapons in a military conflict with NATO or a super power but had the good sense never to do so. As a result of its conventional weakness, Putin's Russia will be forced to use both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in a direct conflict with NATO because his conventional forces are so much weaker than those of the Soviet Union. Putin's reasoning will be something called escalation de-escalation where one power escalates to nuclear weapons in order to scare the opposition into backing down. In other words Putin will "play" thermonuclear chicken to try to deescalate any direct military conflict with NATO. This strategy is likely to fail and would more likely lead to a general thermonuclear exchange involving Europe, Russia and North America.

It's unlikely that the world is going to adopt a Western Cooperation Paradigm because the West is likely not going to offer one. Western economic power is too closely tied to maintaining global political, military and most importantly economic hegemony, so in my opinion the West will never sacrifice its economic strength willingly in order to create a more cooperative world. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

It's symbiosis and symnecrosis with m's not an additional n. These are not my terms but are used in biology.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Trump did not shred JCPOA. Iran already did that. Recognizing that JCPOA had already failed is a point in Trump's favor, but that is not something involving Putin to any large extent. Trump and allies effectively boxed in Iran, greatly reducing terrorist activity in KSA, Iraq, and elsewhere. Getting cooperation from both Israel and Saudi Arabia is an accomplishment by itself. It's hardly back to the 1950s but you say that as if it were a bad thing. You shouldn't.

You gloss over Syria, even though it was a major area of tension between USA and Russia. Russia can back Assad but Putin has no reach or leverage. Big win for Trump. You did not mention Turkey, but a lesser win for Trump.

If you mess up on the basics this badly, how do you expect to get anything right?
Trump shredded the JCPOA agreement. We had no specific knowledge that Iran was not complying with the deal as it was written and non-compliance was not even the reason given by Trump for shredding it. The JCPOA did not go "far enough" was the reason Trump gave for shredding it. Did Trump manage to go farther???? NOPE. Would Iran have ever gone farther after Trump shredded the JCPOA???? NOPE.....Trump purposefully intended to destroy any hope of anything but a contentious relationship with Iran as close to forever as it gets. Smooth Donald....real smooth and completely contrary to US national security interests which of course made it music to Putin's ears. Just go ahead and prove to the Iranians that we are just as untrustworthy in our dealings with them in the 21st century as we were in the 1950's. That should yield a positive national security result.

Turkey is not in the Middle East. Syria was a win for Putin. No other way to look at Syria if the topic is Trump/Putin dynamics or even Obama/Putin dynamics. Though Obama's mistake with Syria was in publicly establishing a "red line" he had no intention of enforcing. Obama's red line ultimately was exposed as a "pink line" or no line at all. Weak....Barrack....WEAK!

As I have oft stated, the three worst US Presidents of the modern era, each worse than his predecessor are the brainless wonder, Bush43, the ever Weak ever oblivious in foreign affairs, vain Obama and the unbelievably unscrupulous and divisive Putin lapdog, and leader of a Coup from the Oval Office, Trump. Trump is working on worst President all time and history may well judge him so.
 
Last edited:
If you will not deal with reality, there is no point in continuing.

JCPOA was a disaster from the start, openly funding terrorism and giving Iran a timetable to develop nuclear weapons. Iran still cheated. We had sufficient knowledge that the Iranians were willfully in violation that we had multiple international allies, including both KSA and Israel.

Syria was a big win for Trump. Putin put a lot of resources into Assad's push and had his hand slapped. It was a nice case of just enough and not too much involvement by USA.

Turkey has always been part of the ME. Where do you get that it's not? Is it because it's in NATO?
 
If you will not deal with reality, there is no point in continuing.

JCPOA was a disaster from the start, openly funding terrorism and giving Iran a timetable to develop nuclear weapons. Iran still cheated. We had sufficient knowledge that the Iranians were willfully in violation that we had multiple international allies, including both KSA and Israel.

Syria was a big win for Trump. Putin put a lot of resources into Assad's push and had his hand slapped. It was a nice case of just enough and not too much involvement by USA.

Turkey has always been part of the ME. Where do you get that it's not? Is it because it's in NATO?
In other words, why try to curtain Iran's nuke development at all. Ah-huh. You have another solution perhaps to trying to develop some sort of relationship since screwing them during the Eisenhower administration, a transgression that Iran never forgot that Fat Donnie reinforced by ripping up the JCPOA.

Republicans never understood the JCPOA because they don't want to acknowledge that one of their few actual heroes of the modern era, Eisenhower screwed the hooch in the 1950's and Iran never forgot it. In fact, part of the reason the Iranians hate the Saudi's so much is because of the well trodden path to a Saudi with his robes hiked up, bent over a desk inviting rear entry. In the view of Iranians, the Saudi's ruined any chance that either the Brits, wildly abusive in it's ME oil business dealings, or the US would ever deal with Arab oil states fairly because both the Brits and the US would always be expecting to find an Arab with his robes hiked up, bent over a desk and happily anticipating rear entry....just like a SAUDI. The JCPOA could have been the start of a road back to some sort of reasonable relationship beyond Dick Cheney and Bombs Away Bolton's view of the world. But oh no....lets just keep proving we can't be trusted. Who does it suit when the United States continues to prove that it can't be trusted? Vladimir Putin, that is who. We are screwed now with Iran probably FOREVER which was what Trump wanted to accomplish and that Putin wanted Trump to accomplish.

For anybody who cares, the geopolitical relationship of importance in the ME is the very contentious Saudi/Iran relationship. Its not Israel anybody. Its not the US and anybody. Its not Russia and anybody. Its Saudi and Iran. The rest of us are bit players to the real geopolitical driving influences in the ME, Iran and Saudi. At present the US does not have a reliable friend in either country. Iran hates us and the Saudis fart in our faces daily, all of which makes Putin so happy he likely orders up a new batch of prostitutes every time he thinks about it.

There has been recent efforts to consider Turkey a ME country. Frankly I don't see why. Its institutions are European and its language is from Central Asia. You can find as many references for Turkey being part of as not being part of the ME. Funny that nobody tries to shoehorn Afghanistan into the ME but Turkey......Middle East!!! Laughable. Yup.... no doubt about it.....Turkey....Middle East. Line that one up with "Trumphumpers are Conservatives.
 
In other words, why try to curtain Iran's nuke development at all. Ah-huh. You have another solution perhaps to trying to develop some sort of relationship since screwing them during the Eisenhower administration, a transgression that Iran never forgot that Fat Donnie reinforced by ripping up the JCPOA.

Republicans never understood the JCPOA because they don't want to acknowledge that one of their few actual heroes of the modern era, Eisenhower screwed the hooch in the 1950's and Iran never forgot it. In fact, part of the reason the Iranians hate the Saudi's so much is because of the well trodden path to a Saudi with his robes hiked up, bent over a desk inviting rear entry. In the view of Iranians, the Saudi's ruined any chance that either the Brits, wildly abusive in it's ME oil business dealings, or the US would ever deal with Arab oil states fairly because both the Brits and the US would always be expecting to find an Arab with his robes hiked up, bent over a desk and happily anticipating rear entry....just like a SAUDI. The JCPOA could have been the start of a road back to some sort of reasonable relationship beyond Dick Cheney and Bombs Away Bolton's view of the world. But oh no....lets just keep proving we can't be trusted. Who does it suit when the United States continues to prove that it can't be trusted? Vladimir Putin, that is who. We are screwed now with Iran probably FOREVER which was what Trump wanted to accomplish and that Putin wanted Trump to accomplish.

For anybody who cares, the geopolitical relationship of importance in the ME is the very contentious Saudi/Iran relationship. Its not Israel anybody. Its not the US and anybody. Its not Russia and anybody. Its Saudi and Iran. The rest of us are bit players to the real geopolitical driving influences in the ME, Iran and Saudi. At present the US does not have a reliable friend in either country. Iran hates us and the Saudis fart in our faces daily, all of which makes Putin so happy he likely orders up a new batch of prostitutes every time he thinks about it.

There has been recent efforts to consider Turkey a ME country. Frankly I don't see why. Its institutions are European and its language is from Central Asia. You can find as many references for Turkey being part of as not being part of the ME. Funny that nobody tries to shoehorn Afghanistan into the ME but Turkey......Middle East!!! Laughable. Yup.... no doubt about it.....Turkey....Middle East. Line that one up with "Trumphumpers are Conservatives.
Misquoting is worse than ignoring facts.
 
Antiwar:

At their highest peaks the US nuclear stockpile was above 32,000 nuclear weapons (1967) and the Soviet stock pile was at 45,000 nuclear weapons (1986). Now both sides have about 4,000-4,500 active weapons and Russia has an additional 1700 decommissioned weapons which have not yet been destroyed. Neither side has held on to their huge Cold War stocks of nuclear weapons and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty brought stocks down to about 10-15% from their maximum levels.

I agree that Russia is no where near the strength of the old USSR, and therein lies the danger. Modern-day Russia is politically, economically and militarily weaker and far more brittle than the old USSR was and therefore in any serious conflict with a top-tier military power, Russia will be likely to use NBC weapons to mask and shore-up its weakness. That's the danger in this latest phase of the Russo-Ukraine War. The old paradigm of strategic nuclear weapons as a deterent and as weapons of last desperate resort is no longer valid in Russian thinking. In fact the Soviets always intended to use tactical nuclear weapons in a military conflict with NATO or a super power but had the good sense never to do so. As a result of its conventional weakness, Putin's Russia will be forced to use both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in a direct conflict with NATO because his conventional forces are so much weaker than those of the Soviet Union. Putin's reasoning will be something called escalation de-escalation where one power escalates to nuclear weapons in order to scare the opposition into backing down. In other words Putin will "play" thermonuclear chicken to try to deescalate any direct military conflict with NATO. This strategy is likely to fail and would more likely lead to a general thermonuclear exchange involving Europe, Russia and North America.

It's unlikely that the world is going to adopt a Western Cooperation Paradigm because the West is likely not going to offer one. Western economic power is too closely tied to maintaining global political, military and most importantly economic hegemony, so in my opinion the West will never sacrifice its economic strength willingly in order to create a more cooperative world. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

It's symbiosis and symnecrosis with m's not an additional n. These are not my terms but are used in biology.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

90% agree on 1, 2, and 3.

We need to abolish all nuclear weapons and do many things much differently on Earth (we need to be much more biological, for one), but the US is leading humanity off the cliff more than leading to a livable future.

Symnecrosis seems correct, but ... that hegemonic search engine is correcting to synnecrosis and not showing symnecrosis (very basic searches).
 
Is that what the fat orange Jesus substitute is telling you guys now?
How would I know?

I never listened to what Trump was saying in the first place. I watched what he was doing and right now, that's nothing much.
 
90% agree on 1, 2, and 3.

We need to abolish all nuclear weapons and do many things much differently on Earth (we need to be much more biological, for one), but the US is leading humanity off the cliff more than leading to a livable future.

Symnecrosis seems correct, but ... that hegemonic search engine is correcting to synnecrosis and not showing symnecrosis (very basic searches).

How do we get North Korea or China to abolish their nuclear weapons when they don't want to?
 
#66 keeps on asking questions he doesn't want to acknowledge were already answered. Otherwise known as trolling.
 
90% agree on 1, 2, and 3.

We need to abolish all nuclear weapons and do many things much differently on Earth (we need to be much more biological, for one), but the US is leading humanity off the cliff more than leading to a livable future.

Symnecrosis seems correct, but ... that hegemonic search engine is correcting to synnecrosis and not showing symnecrosis (very basic searches).
Antiwar:

I stand corrected. The word is synnecrosis and you were correct, I was wrong. For 38 years I have been using the wrong spelling and nobody pointed it out, so thank you. I learn something new everyday and I love being proved wrong. Well done, sir!

Cheers, be well and thank you.
Evilroddy.
 
Antiwar:

I stand corrected. The word is synnecrosis and you were correct, I was wrong. For 38 years I have been using the wrong spelling and nobody pointed it out, so thank you. I learn something new everyday and I love being proved wrong. Well done, sir!

Cheers, be well and thank you.
Evilroddy.

Woot woot!
 
#66 keeps on asking questions he doesn't want to acknowledge were already answered. Otherwise known as trolling.

Handwaving with "they just would" isn't an answer.
 
Straw man trolling is weak.

What kind of "Left-libertarian" is so gung ho about US militarism and so against an effective international justice system? A neoliberal or neoconservative bull:poop:er? I don't care. Their opinion and my opinion aren't going to stop the USG's mother****ing war machine.
 
Evilroddy:

The Soviet Union dissolved on December 26th, 1991. Russia is not the Soviet Union, but they kept much of the Soviet nuclear arsenal and have continued to counter Western dominance, and a counter to Western dominance is a good thing. It'd be great if Western (and/or Global North) dominance would willingly change to a global cooperation paradigm AND if counters to the Western dominance paradigm didn't try to compete by using a similar but smaller domination paradigm. But they haven't, and that's led by the US. The domination paradigm is driven by the US.

Synnecrosis is a good word: the living together of two organisms in a mutually destructive relationship.

Be well and stay un-radiated.
Antiwar

so what is it that the west should cooperate over? tyranny, dictatorship?
 
so what is it that the west should cooperate over? tyranny, dictatorship?

#1 is trying to save our asses from what industrialism and exploitation has done and continues to do to Earth's ecosystems.
 
Back
Top Bottom