patrick.net

FP says

And this shows again what a gas bag you are:

You asked a question on this thread, I gave you the answer.

Establishment will always look at Russia as the enemy because we don't share the same values.

For example, how is Putin still in power? How many people has he killed? How many people has he put into prison that has opposed him?

Rex! ..... "We're not likely to ever be friends," he said, adding that the United States and Russia "do not hold the same values."

Logan Mohtashami says

If you don't like the answer ( We don't share the same values) then you don't like the answer.

However, that was my answer to why the Establishment looks at Russia as our enemy.

If by "values" you mean "SWIFT International Wire Transfer System" then I agree. Russia was all fine and good and Hillary wanted a relations "reset" until the dastardly Ruskies created the BRICS wire transfer system, cutting New York out of that money train. Clearly such disregard for NY banker hegemony couldn't be allowed to stand or spread! So the bankers sponsored a Ukrainian neo-nazi coup, knowing that Russia would intervene to save Russian citizens there and could be officially declared a rogue state.
THAT is why Russia is the enemy! Because they don't share banker values and pay tribute to the bankers of New York! Such heresy! Nothing should be held back in pursuit of justice for these Russian bastards! Let the nukes fly! Better that the world ends in flame and nuclear winter than a banker gets stiffed on a $30 wire transfer fee!

Logan, you have proven to be very shallow. I have no interest in carrying out a serous duscussion with you any more.

I can't follow the money trail to find who in the Establishment/PTB benefits?
If they see a bigger profit elsewhere they will drop their present propaganda
& move to another line of shit.

FP says

So all the "Russia threaten Eastern Europe," cries are little more than US incited hysteria to justify their hyping Russia as an enemy. Russia simply does not have the capability to be a threat.

Russia is a country that sees itself as a pole of power in a multi-polar world. They used to have large influence around the world and cling to that as much as they can, often by opposing the US in countries that have been historically opposed to the US: see Iran, and Syria as just 2 examples.

One of the things Russia does for its "allies" is providing high tech air defense systems that make US air assault very difficult. Insulating them from US influence.

So they wield more influence in the world than China. While arguably China is a stronger country, economically and eventually militarily.

Add to this that Putin is an evil autocrat that bullies and kill its critics/opposition. He will push for as much power and influence as the US let him have.

Clearly Russia a strategic competitor of the US.

It still probably doesn't mean the US should have pushed him around in Ukraine the way Obama/Clinton did.

When you deal with a dictator that can destroy every town, larger than mid size, in the US within an afternoon, you should think twice before pushing him around.

Rin says

What I don't understand is that through the 2000s, Putin was a ruthless dictator, having journalists & others mysteriously die, however, during that time period, he was a this 'nice guy' free market President, great ally of America in the mainstream press.

I think everyone thought he would go after a while and many in the west bought the fact that Medvedev became president in 2008 and was really in power.
It's getting clearer that we are dealing with a dictator for life.

Quigley says

If by "values" you mean "SWIFT International Wire Transfer System" then I agree. Russia was all fine and good and Hillary wanted a relations "reset" until the dastardly Ruskies created the BRICS wire transfer system, cutting New York out of that money train. Clearly such disregard for NY banker hegemony couldn't be allowed to stand or spread!

Like it or not, the US has financial power and uses it around the world for its agenda.
It's an efficient and much less costly (in money and lives) way to enforce power than force is.
The question is do you root for the home team or not?
If you could have the US in power or Putin in power, who would you choose?
Because that's often the choice.

Right, Heraclitus - because Putin is so much more oppressive and ill-willed than China's unelected elite, totalitarian rulers.

/sarc (for oblivious)

If you mean China is the #1 competitor in the long term, I agree with that.
At the same time China doesn't support Iran and Syria or continuously gets in the way of what the US is trying to do.
China works with the US for most things and that's why they get left alone.

China actually has a very close relation with Iran, FYI, and actually has conducted trade with them in hard-asset transactions (i.e. sour crude oil for machine tools, aviation parts, equipment, etc.) for a long time.

China interests are commercial. Russian interests in Iran are not only commercial but geopolitical, as we see in the case of Syria. They want to limit US influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria%E2%80%93Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_coalition

China supplies all sorts of armaments to Iran and has for a long time.

China views Iran as a strategic partner in many ways due to its need to import most of its oil. Iran has 10% of the world's proven oil reserves, and has demonstrated a working alliance with China that spans many decades - a pragmatic, real politik one.

You don't hear/read about it, because it's an inconvenient, messy truth in a world where most major U.S. Corporations depend heavily on the Chinese market for revenue or rock-bottom priced components or labor, and that would just be rocking the status quo boat if it were to harped on.

The US has a completely different strategy with China than with Russia.
Russia's regime hangs on a single strongman whereas China as a complex regime based on a political elite and is likely more stable and harder to oppose.
I think the US thought that developing China would force China elites to become progressively more liberal, the assumption being that capitalism requires freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of enterprise. This is the justification we heard in the 90's at least. So far it has not worked at all and we have developed a malicious and unethical superpower that cares for nothing but its own day to day financial and political interests. We'll see how they fare when their economy suffers a true downturn which is inevitable in the longer term.
In any case, the lack of opposition to China, in no way suggests that we shouldn't oppose Putin.

I think the assumption of many here is that if only we leave Putin alone he will leave the US alone.
He won't.
He will actively seek to weaken US influence and the US itself.

Unless he becomes an ally. If the US, Europe, and Russia unite, forget about the rest of the world or the rise of the rest of the BRICs. No combination of powers could resist anything they wanted to do - and they would dominate the World Island and indeed the "Land Hemisphere" - in this case, the Northern Hemisphere where most of the world's land mass is.

I think your (Heraclitus) take on Russia is wrong, and that you conflate its capabilities and exaggerate Putin's desires, much the way the neocons (such as the Robert Kagans & Victoria Nulands of the world) do.

Russia is a weak-economic power that possesses significant military assets that represent a deterrent element, and with the annexation of Crimea, it's given license to the military-industrial complex and neocons to try and repackage Russia, which is a shadow of its former Soviet Union days, as an excuse to ramp up massive (well, even MOAR MASSIVE-ER) military spending to enrichment the den of filers.

War and the threat of it (often sensationalized) is a Tremendous Racket, and the most prosperous business model in history, as it inherently involves a resort to massive deficit spending via fiat currency/debt, which robs future growth from other economic sectors and taxpayers, and allows the private banks that literally represent the "central bank" to exert even more control over the levers of government.

T L Lipsovich says

If the US, Europe, and Russia unite, forget about the rest of the world or the rise of the rest of the BRICs. No combination of powers could resist anything they wanted to do

Indeed and this is exactly why they are not allies.

freespeechforever says

it's given license to the military-industrial complex and neocons to try and repackage Russia, which is a shadow of its former Soviet Union days, as an excuse to ramp up massive

Yes, and it's worse on Russia's side: Putin's legitimacy is attached to his success in foreign policies and the military strength of Russia. Which is why he will not stop at Crimea or Ukraine. Again I think it is a mistake to think that, if left alone, Putin will leave the west alone. He will push his weight against the US and even more against Europe. He will attempt to destabilize Europe and may well succeed considering the mess Europe is in right now.
None of it is in US interests.

And as if on cue, Voila:

McCain Proposes Massive $5 Trillion, 5-Year Defense Budget; Blames "Flawed Obama Defense Strategy"

*Today's Headline

Can anyone say McCarthyism

Tim Aurora says

freespeechforever says

Why Does Establishment Claim Russia is "Enemy"?

Freespechforever asking why we hate Russia is an Irony. There is no free speech in Russia.

There are a lot of countries we do not need to go out of our way to have hostilities with, whether they have more, as much, or less free speech than those in the U.S. do (and free speech in the U.S. has come under pressure).

Your point is irrational.

Tim Aurora says

Freespechforever asking why we hate Russia is an Irony. There is no free speech in Russia.

hahahaha. Okay, pal. The Overton Window in Russia is about 1000% bigger than the USA. You can say shit on Russian TV that would get you blacklisted from every network in the USA.

The countries where you go to jail for Free Speech are called Saudi Arabia and China. Turkey, also.