Quote:
No fan of Hilary but she was right about Russia and this stuff about nuclear war is nonsense. She always behaved in a greedy, amoral, calculating but ultimately rational manner.
Your latter sentence contains a contradiction. I'm thinking the part where you call her greedy, amoral, calculating is you using your brain and the part where you call her rational reflects your inability to unencumber your thoughts from the media propaganda harness. Is she rational from a national perspective? because that is the only rational that counts. The rationality of her doing what aggrandizes her own profile and makes her ruthless wealthy controllers more money is distinctly irrational from a national perspective. No, it doesn't make you safer when your government goes out and strong arms the globe. It makes you less safe.
Quote:
I don't think people in the US understand how bad the Ukraine situation is. It has two enormous problems:
1) It proves that when the US tells someone that they will defend them, they can't be trusted. The US electorate is incredibly ignorant of this. Other nations notice. For example, you'll note that Pence's admonition to NATO was met with hollow laughter. That's because no one trusts the US any more, even in generally pro-us countries of which there are fewer everyday.
Yeah but that is offset by being unpredictable. Plus it is pretty well understood what for what we will go to the mat. If we try to flip your country next to Russia and it doesn't work you are pretty much on your own. That should be obvious.
Quote:
Obama's position on Ukraine was weak, but he was at least doing something. Trump's position is betrayal.
2) It proves that when a country gives up its nukes it will get ****ed. Nuclearl proliferation is the greatest threat to the world, and again the US electorate seems to be entirely ignorant of how much danger Trump's pro-Russian stance is. You would have to be an idiot to give up your nukes now.
Why look at everything through the strong/weak paradigm? Why not consider what is really going on there with attempts at NATO expansion? Do you know what sort of agreements had been made regarding NATO expansion?
Here is another way to look at it. The U.S. claims basically a hemisphere for it's sovereign, or let's call it a solemn sovereign since a tenet of American exceptionalism is that we own the world, you're just a renter. So we have the Monroe doctrine spanning a hemisphere, and Russia can protect a few dinky countries that happen to be on it's border. That seems like an OK arrangement to me.
