Whatever the outcome, you boys are painting a pretty bleak picture of the future...

---

Sweater, n.: garment worn by child when her mother is feeling chilly. ~Ambrose Bierce

Не знаю точно, можно ли на форуме давать ссылки, но попробую :) Очень здравый анализ, на мой взгляд, российско-грузинской войны и ее последствий: http://echo.msk.ru/programs/razvorot/539938-echo/ Нет оголтелости, отмечены плюсы и минусы, присутствует очень здравый подход к обстоятельствам конфликта. P.S. А зачем два топика на одну тему?

Egor:

Do we trust that the US will never conduct a first strike on Russia?  I sort of do. 

what is your reasoning behind such trust? 

---

pomidorchik:

Egor:

Do we trust that the US will never conduct a first strike on Russia?  I sort of do. 

what is your reasoning behind such trust? 

lots of reasons, from economic, to the political system here.  It is not important why I think this. 

What's important is that Russia doesn't care what i think :) It has no reason or historical precedent to trust the US, nor is the US behaving as a party tpo be trusted now, and in that sense any missile intercept systems (and there will be many, many more), are going to aggravate them.  The US has made a decision that this is fine - a side effect it can live with.

The way technology and gepolitics is develoing, an eventual global anti-missle defense shied is inevitable.  Ideally, this could be done by cooperation of the first world against extremist nations, many of which are going to be developing long-range delivery systems in the coming decades.

Russia only really has a choice of whether to participate in it.  If and when they do, I think is more up to the US.  Perhaps Poland was not the right place to start, if we wanted Russia to cooperate.

Remember, a couple of years ago, US and Russia were in talks about cooperating in putting in some anti-missle systems north of Iran.  It did not go well.  But i hope it someday will.

 

 

 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Who has the most to lose from a nuclear war??

The answer is sooooo simple.

 

---

"Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable."

I forget the cultural differences...

Who has the most to lose in terms of economic gross domestic product (GDP)?  The USA. 

Its not that we have the most to lose in pride.  We certainly don't want to lose more than a few thousand lives.

It's really about the almight dollar - we don't want to lose money.

Russians, as we saw in WWII, are willing to sacrifice everything for victory.  We don't want that here.  No way.  Too painful. Makes the Depression look like Disney Land.

So yeah, keep Russia from nuking us.  Just in case.

 

 

---

"Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable."

Egor:

I have argued here for the side of the US, but this really boils down to everyone's innermost fears and where you put your trust.

Exactly, historically Russia has suffered from too many invasions and the whole subject is very touchy. We lost too much last time some western idiot wanted some resources which belonged to us.

 Do we trust that the US will never conduct a first strike on Russia?  I sort of do.

I certainly do not. And more I live here, the more evidence I find to confirm my suspicion.
Anti-Russian paranoia here is unbelievable. Level of double standards is tru the roof !

As soon as US elite will be 99% sure they can get away with absolute minimum Russian response (maybe only one US city destroyed) - they will not hesitate to strike. With the way mass media operates here, history will record that "cowardly Russian terrorist act has forced US to defend itself and eliminate Russian threat forever".

Both sides used to agree on danger of weapon systems that can lead to such an advantage for the one who strikes first, that's why treaties were in place, which US broke unilaterally after USSR fall apart.

I mean why did they do that ????
Since 1985 if not earlier and up until last month , I guess, militarily Russia was no threat to no one.
Falling apart military, no investment into weapons development, no new weapon systems, no money for fuel, almost completely destroyed aviation etc....

What was the reason all those years since 1985 NATO was expanding and US was creating more and more new precision weapon systems ???

To beat Iraq you don;t need stealth and laser guided munitions  .... but you need those if you want to be able to destroy all nuclear response capability in one strike. 

 

 And that trust extends for decades. I trust Russia less.

In foreign policy - I trust Russia more.
In local policy - opposite.

  ESPECIALLY for decades. 

Why is that ?

Therefore, with some reservations, I support these installations surrounding Russia.  I am picking what I consider the lesser of the dangers.

I don;t get this jump in logic  - wouldn't it be better if both sides limited their weapons development ?
Like USSR and then Russia begged for years ?
What is the pressing need to surround Russia with bases ?

Cold war is lost, this is a reasonable aftermath of it.

How is it reasonable ?
All agreements done when cold war was ending are broken by the west ....how is that reasonable ?

Russia should consider itself lucky to have what they have, I believe ther are being treated more than reasonably in the historical context.

what historical contex ?

the one in which at the hands of US more people died than at the hands of russians ? or some alternate history contex ??

If i am wrong, I am wrong BIGTIME.  Bc it can be argued that the reason we don;t have a nuclear holocaust is because "mutually assured destruction" stopped us.  If that goes away, all is left is my trust that the US won't do it. 

nuclear holocaust didn't happen because USSR made a bomb and a delivery system.  USSR was always behind in new weapons systems, we had to catch up to US because they always wanted an advantage.....
all you need to do is to read publicly available documents from trumen administration and Central Committee and compare their views on foreign policy.

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

James Bond:

Who has the most to lose from a nuclear war??

The answer is sooooo simple.

Self defense is in people's blood, i don't care where you are from.  Defense always has more to lose in a sudden death overtime that is a nuclear escalation.  You won't be counting dollars and comparing GDPs, trust me, if your nation, way of life, was under imminent threat. And keep in mind, in a nuclear standoff, all sides will percieve themselves as defense from the most imminent threat possible, particularly in terms of public propaganda.

When an existential threat is interpreted, Russian people will surprise, there is perhaps no other historical truth that can be better backed up with evidence.  I suspect (although there has been very little testing), the same is true for the US.  The US is just not as threatened.  at least, not in terms of what is percieved by the electorate, and most definitely not threatened by Russia, when compared to Islamic terrorism.  Russia does not have this problem.   They know all too well who threatens their national survival and its the US. And this is drilled ad-nauseum into the public psyche.

They would surprise.  And quiet possibly sacrifice things you wouldn't believe.  Its been a blessing and a curse for them.

That is why I support missile defense.  Russia is actually a very low danger risk compared to some others, and some in the pipeline currently. I want the whole planet covered by that *** very soon, fancy satellite controlled one :)  Like I said, US just started in the wrong place at the wrong time, their hand was further weakened by the foreign policy errors, lame duck presidency, etc... so this all could probably have been handled more productively.

You certainly can't make the case that the US is less threatened by virtue of missile defense in Poland.  In fact, the effect was the opposite, and this is a redundant error for the US, in my opinion.

 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

KGBMan:

Exactly, historically Russia has suffered from too many invasions and the whole subject is very touchy. We lost too much last time some western idiot wanted some resources which belonged to us.

Agreed! 

KGBMan:

I certainly do not. And more I live here, the more evidence I find to confirm my suspicion.
Anti-Russian paranoia here is unbelievable. Level of double standards is tru the roof !

As soon as US elite will be 99% sure they can get away with absolute minimum Russian response (maybe only one US city destroyed) - they will not hesitate to strike. With the way mass media operates here, history will record that "cowardly Russian terrorist act has forced US to defend itself and eliminate Russian threat forever".

I agree that this is a reasonable situation, but by the time this point (of being willing to sacrifice a city) is reached, in my opinion, Russia would have already struck.  It is my gut feeling about Americans, it is really impossible to tell if this is true - there are no historical data on American psyche in a situation like this since 1775

 Closest example is WW2, and US needed to be aggressively attacked in order to act, both in terms of governemnt, and public opinion.

KGBMan:

Both sides used to agree on danger of weapon systems that can lead to such an advantage for the one who strikes first, that's why treaties were in place, which US broke unilaterally after USSR fall apart.

I mean why did they do that ????
Since 1985 if not earlier and up until last month , I guess, militarily Russia was no threat to no one.

Before 1985, USSR was an equal partner in talks conducted under a doctrine of mutually assured destruction and extremely high tensions.  Remember how many treaties there were with nazi Germany before WW2.  Are winning sides expected to honor these treaties?  That is absurd.  The conflict in which USSR threatened the existance of the US (and vice versa) was ended, and the US won that conflict.  Russia was not even disarmed.  You want your treaties honored too?  You had nukes pointed at the US for almost 40 years!

This, by the way, is another reason to answer Pom's question.  Americans are too f*cking nice.   This population tends to care about baby-killing and other wierd moral issues i could never convince you exist.  Imagine the public disorder and protests here.  Our authorities cannot handle that and they know it.  If that issue is even raised, i can't imagine any US president even raising it.

KGBMan:

In foreign policy - I trust Russia more.
In local policy - opposite.

Here's my problem, I said in one of my posts, and you agreed, that Russia is more prone to extremes.  This is the reason I like their current government's grip, and interpretation of freedom, though I wouldn't want either here!  

If the situation with the US gets much worse, they could easily elect a Zhirinovsky type a decade from now.  Maybe Zhirinovsky himself wouldn't really shoot off nukes, (i hear he is deceptively reasonable ), but a person representing that electorate easily could.  Political stability is the #1 measure of the danger level of any nuclear player.  Russia has been all over the place over the last century. Consider the timeline since they got nuclear weapons. It is EXTREMELY unstable.

US is extremely stable, even too much to act pragmatically on a range of tremendously important issues, internal and external.  The difference between the extreme left and extreme right, is about zero compared to what went on in Russia:  from hardcore autocratic communism - to sellout liberalism, and everything in between.  All electable US politicians are centrist by comparison.

KGBMan:

I don;t get this jump in logic  - wouldn't it be better if both sides limited their weapons development ?
Like USSR and then Russia begged for years ?

Because if they do that, they'll eventually have less weapons than islamic nuclear powers

I do not believe in any realistic possibility in our lifetimes of eradicating nuclear weapons, or of increasing anyone's security by decreasing these weapons.  No matter what is decreased, there's enough to threaten nations, continents, and the planet. 

US in particular,  has zero reasons to reasonably justify any decrease in its nuclear abilities.  (Obama may disagree)

KGBMan:

 

What is the pressing need to surround Russia with bases ?

I agree with you, this need was not pressing.  but there are probably many individual reasons why many US officials support this.  There's fear and mistrust.  There are more complicated reasons - i think this can be seen as test of what Russia is thinking.  If they want to be an integrated economic player, they supposedly would not care about these bases and remain cooperative, but if they have ambitions that are threatened by these bases, better find out now than later.  Who knows what people are thinking   But one could make a case, most definitely.

Again, In the environment of having just won a cold war, one the perks the luxury to screw around and assert yourself. 

I wonder what USSR would have done, had it won  

I am glad we didn't get to find out...

KGBMan:

what historical contex ?

the one in which at the hands of US more people died than at the hands of russians ? or some alternate history contex ??

I meant that in history it is going to look like Russia was preserved by a miracle after having been economically defeated in the greatest, most dangerous global conflict experienced to date.  It even wants its treaties honored!  This is after holding the planet hostage to communist dictatorship and military aggression for nearly a century.

 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Egor:

KGBMan:

Exactly, historically Russia has suffered from too many invasions and the whole subject is very touchy. We lost too much last time some western idiot wanted some resources which belonged to us.

Agreed! 

OK, this is very important point to the whole conversation and a key to the whole USSR/Russian foreign policy, military doctrine etc.....

KGBMan:

I certainly do not. And more I live here, the more evidence I find to confirm my suspicion.
Anti-Russian paranoia here is unbelievable. Level of double standards is tru the roof !

As soon as US elite will be 99% sure they can get away with absolute minimum Russian response (maybe only one US city destroyed) - they will not hesitate to strike. With the way mass media operates here, history will record that "cowardly Russian terrorist act has forced US to defend itself and eliminate Russian threat forever".

I agree that this is a reasonable situation, but by the time this point (of being willing to sacrifice a city) is reached, in my opinion, Russia would have already struck.  It is my gut feeling about Americans, it is really impossible to tell if this is true - there are no historical data on American psyche in a situation like this since 1775

Russia would never attack first - ever !
US is already at situation where it's elite is willing to sacrifice a city, they are just technicaly incapable of ensuring that yet. With enough bases around Russia - they will.

 Closest example is WW2, and US needed to be aggressively attacked in order to act, both in terms of governemnt, and public opinion.

Just compare what America was prior to WWII and today and you'll see a huge different in policies, government and people and their opinions.
You cannot compare country on the verge of isolationism with country that bombs people left and right for no particular reason.

KGBMan:

Both sides used to agree on danger of weapon systems that can lead to such an advantage for the one who strikes first, that's why treaties were in place, which US broke unilaterally after USSR fall apart.

I mean why did they do that ????
Since 1985 if not earlier and up until last month , I guess, militarily Russia was no threat to no one.

Before 1985, USSR was an equal partner in talks conducted under a doctrine of mutually assured destruction and extremely high tensions.  Remember how many treaties there were with nazi Germany before WW2.  Are winning sides expected to honor these treaties?  That is absurd.  The conflict in which USSR threatened the existance of the US (and vice versa) was ended, and the US won that conflict.  Russia was not even disarmed.  You want your treaties honored too?  You had nukes pointed at the US for almost 40 years!

Well, technicaly we didn't loose, we agreed to cease hostilities in exchange for certain things, which were never delivered . By the time we realized that we were conned , it was too late, Gorbachev/Elcin already destroyed all Russia's capability to compete or to fight.

This, by the way, is another reason to answer Pom's question.  Americans are too f*cking nice.   This population tends to care about baby-killing and other wierd moral issues i could never convince you exist.  Imagine the public disorder and protests here.  Our authorities cannot handle that and they know it.  If that issue is even raised, i can't imagine any US president even raising it.

All this care about baby-killing never stopped and doesn't stop now all the baby-killing US military does on daily basis. So, that's not an argument.

KGBMan:

In foreign policy - I trust Russia more.
In local policy - opposite.

Here's my problem, I said in one of my posts, and you agreed, that Russia is more prone to extremes.  This is the reason I like their current government's grip, and interpretation of freedom, though I wouldn't want either here!  

It is more prone to extremes in everything, except foreign policy. There it was rock solid since we delivered on our promises in 1945.

If the situation with the US gets much worse, they could easily elect a Zhirinovsky type a decade from now.  Maybe Zhirinovsky himself wouldn't really shoot off nukes, (i hear he is deceptively reasonable ), but a person representing that electorate easily could.  Political stability is the #1 measure of the danger level of any nuclear player.  Russia has been all over the place over the last century. Consider the timeline since they got nuclear weapons. It is EXTREMELY unstable.

never all over the place, never !!

always scared shitless to do anything to provoke any kind of response that can lead to a War.

US is extremely stable, even too much to act pragmatically on a range of tremendously important issues, internal and external.  The difference between the extreme left and extreme right, is about zero compared to what went on in Russia:  from hardcore autocratic communism - to sellout liberalism, and everything in between.  All electable US politicians are centrist by comparison.

Yes, US is very stable and very aggressive . Always poking around trying to start something ;)

KGBMan:

I don;t get this jump in logic  - wouldn't it be better if both sides limited their weapons development ?
Like USSR and then Russia begged for years ?

Because if they do that, they'll eventually have less weapons than islamic nuclear powers

Oh, c'mon ..... no islamic nation can build 5000 warheads and ballistic missiles to compete with US or Russia even if they slash their stash by 2....

I do not believe in any realistic possibility in our lifetimes of eradicating nuclear weapons, or of increasing anyone's security by decreasing these weapons.  No matter what is decreased, there's enough to threaten nations, continents, and the planet. 

neither do I. It's utopia.

But there is a difference between numbers needed for deterrent or those needed for surprise attack.

US in particular,  has zero reasons to reasonably justify any decrease in its nuclear abilities.  (Obama may disagree)

Do not believe so...

KGBMan:

 

What is the pressing need to surround Russia with bases ?

I agree with you, this need was not pressing.  but there are probably many individual reasons why many US officials support this.  There's fear and mistrust.  There are more complicated reasons - i think this can be seen as test of what Russia is thinking.  If they want to be an integrated economic player, they supposedly would not care about these bases and remain cooperative, but if they have ambitions that are threatened by these bases, better find out now than later.  Who knows what people are thinking   But one could make a case, most definitely.

They started build up when Russia was not even looking outside it's borders, at a time we were completely hopeless ??? WTF ??

Again, In the environment of having just won a cold war, one the perks the luxury to screw around and assert yourself. 

I wonder what USSR would have done, had it won  

I am glad we didn't get to find out...

It would have behaive better. I'm sure.

KGBMan:

what historical contex ?

the one in which at the hands of US more people died than at the hands of russians ? or some alternate history contex ??

I meant that in history it is going to look like Russia was preserved by a miracle after having been economically defeated in the greatest, most dangerous global conflict experienced to date.  It even wants its treaties honored!  This is after holding the planet hostage to communist dictatorship and military aggression for nearly a century.

military aggression ???!?!?!?!?!?!
what are you smocking ??????!?!?!?!?

planet hostage ????

 

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

KGBMan:

Russia would never attack first - ever !

Assuming you are right, the US cannot afford to reason this way.  It simply cannot.  Do you understand?

I think US won't attack first, yet I understand that Russia cannot afford to gamble on this like I can on a forum

Why can't you undesratnd that?

KGBMan:

US is already at situation where it's elite is willing to sacrifice a city, they are just technicaly incapable of ensuring that yet. With enough bases around Russia - they will.

No, look what James wrote.  And he is willing to sacrifice more that 95% of population, IMHO.  A normal American wouldn't sacrifice a dinner at Applebees.  95% didn't sacrifice a penny for Iraq, marketed to us as an imminent threat.  I actually think its a good thing, americans are not as easily manipulated by personal problems of their ruling party elite.  There are more important things in life.

But when attacked/cornered, then you would be correct.  But a whole city??  That would take an attack the likes of which the US has not yet experienced.

Just compare what America was prior to WWII and today and you'll see a huge different in policies, government and people and their opinions.
You cannot compare country on the verge of isolationism with country that bombs people left and right for no particular reason.

hmmm.. i do not see this difference at all.  not in terms of sociology, and not in terms of international aggression.  Remember the list you posted here once of US aggressions?

KGBMan:

Well, technicaly we didn't loose, we agreed to cease hostilities in exchange for certain things

that's some funny sh*t!

KGBMan:

, which were never delivered . By the time we realized that we were conned , it was too late, Gorbachev/Elcin already destroyed all Russia's capability to compete or to fight.

"by the time" you realized?  It sounds like you still haven't realized.  The west spoils Russia.

KGBMan:

All this care about baby-killing never stopped and doesn't stop now all the baby-killing US military does on daily basis. So, that's not an argument.

Oh, come on, our hawks would kill 1000x more babies had it not been for our doves.  Yeah, we kill to many as it is, these points are not contradictory.

 

KGBMan:

It is more prone to extremes in everything, except foreign policy. There it was rock solid since we delivered on our promises in 1945.

ok, so which was the most stable?  From Stalin to Khruschev?  from Brezhnev to Gorbachev?  From Gorbachev to Yeltsin?  From Yeltsin to Putin? 

Russia is a woman with chronic PMS.

I grant you, Putin to Putin, was a stable transition this year   But we still can't predict wtf they'll want 5 years from now.

US always wants one thing - economically motivated for the last 200 years, and marketed to its electorate according to what works at any given time.  Liberty, fairness, democracy, self-defense, whatever.  But its always the same thing.

always scared shitless to do anything to provoke any kind of response that can lead to a War.

That's because they always think the West is bluffing.  Including now.  And they are usually right  

Oh, c'mon ..... no islamic nation can build 5000 warheads and ballistic missiles to compete with US or Russia even if they slash their stash by 2....

I said "eventually".  If Russia and US are dumb enough to systematically reduce their WMDs, the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction.  

Thats why I say - fight the delivery systems.  50 years from now, if we make it that far, no missle should be able to fly without being destroyed by a satellite controlled global defense system.  Including those launched by the US.  Doesn;t matter to me, I don;t think the US would strike, but it would calm down the critics.  This can't happen w/o Russia, which is why I want them on board   I would even let them bring China and India

They started build up when Russia was not even looking outside it's borders, at a time we were completely hopeless ??? WTF ??

No one here trusted that Russia was hopeless.  At best, the dumbest people here, hoped they'd become like Australia or Canada   In which case they wouldn't give two sh*ts about this buildup by an ALLY. 

Yes, this is ridiculous, what i just wrote.   But no one has ever accused the US of being logical.

Smarter politicians here, maybe saw all this coming, it was a given, and they do not believe the installations contributed to it.  Rather, it is a mitigating factor, not knowing what sort of government or interests would control the Russian nuclear arsenal moving forward.  You think its stable, but no one else does.

military aggression ???!?!?!?!?!?!
what are you smocking ??????!?!?!?!?

planet hostage ????

Why don't you ask the international community. 
I am not going to argue for what I consider to be obvious, I am just informing you of what humanity believes :)

And the world will not forget, KGBman.  Not in our lifetimes.

 

 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

During WWII, Russia was furious that the USA would not enter the war earlier to get a 2 front war going sooner against the ***.

The USA roared into Germany with victory pretty much a given fact.  I would guess the reason Russia did NOT turn its tanks around and go back to Russia (versus holding Eastern Europe hostage for 50 years) was because they did pay such a heavy price.  Stalin was pissed at the loss of life, and he decided that owning Eastern Europe was a fair price to pay for winning the war.

Those that trust NO government, don't see a big difference between dictators like Franco and Hitler, versus Stalin and US presidents. 

Now, let me take KGBmans side for a moment.  Just for fun.  If under Communism, Eastern Europe had thrived economically, and under democracy Western Europe had gone bankrupt, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Russia would be the one and only Superpower.  But that didn't happen. 

Because of that, Eastern Europe will never forgive the Russians.  Of course, the USA gets little credit for 'defending' Europe (one man's NATO is another man's occupation force).

 

---

"Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable."

Egor:

KGBMan:

Russia would never attack first - ever !

Assuming you are right, the US cannot afford to reason this way.  It simply cannot.  Do you understand?

I think US won't attack first, yet I understand that Russia cannot afford to gamble on this like I can on a forum

Why can't you undesratnd that?

Nope, I can't understand that. US has a history of attacking first, sometimes with little or no reason at all.
Russia on another hand , has next to nothing in this category.

So , I do not see any rational reasons behind US paranoia

 

KGBMan:

US is already at situation where it's elite is willing to sacrifice a city, they are just technicaly incapable of ensuring that yet. With enough bases around Russia - they will.

No, look what James wrote.  And he is willing to sacrifice more that 95% of population, IMHO.  A normal American wouldn't sacrifice a dinner at Applebees.  95% didn't sacrifice a penny for Iraq, marketed to us as an imminent threat.  I actually think its a good thing, americans are not as easily manipulated by personal problems of their ruling party elite.  There are more important things in life.

But when attacked/cornered, then you would be correct.  But a whole city??  That would take an attack the likes of which the US has not yet experienced.

US populaton will do what it's told, like it always does. They simply don;t know anything about outside word.
Examples of Serbia and Iraq are perfect examples of how population can be made believe anything .

Just compare what America was prior to WWII and today and you'll see a huge different in policies, government and people and their opinions.
You cannot compare country on the verge of isolationism with country that bombs people left and right for no particular reason.

hmmm.. i do not see this difference at all.  not in terms of sociology, and not in terms of international aggression.  Remember the list you posted here once of US aggressions?

Ok, let's compare than.
Prior to WWII US was perfectly fine with USSR and was actively helping rebuild the country.
Isolationism was very popular and one vote away from becoming a state policy.
All eyes were on neighbors and all aggressions were confined to it's own part of the globe.

Today, US officialy names the whole world it's interests territory.
It has bases through the world, mingles in almost every conflict and has started way more wars that prior to 1941.

I see a huge difference here.

KGBMan:

Well, technicaly we didn't loose, we agreed to cease hostilities in exchange for certain things

that's some funny sh*t!

What's so funny about it ?

KGBMan:

, which were never delivered . By the time we realized that we were conned , it was too late, Gorbachev/Elcin already destroyed all Russia's capability to compete or to fight.

"by the time" you realized?  It sounds like you still haven't realized.  The west spoils Russia.

oh, now we did. Whole population believed that as long as we were no longer commies, we gonna be friends with the West.
Now, everyone knows that West is not to be trusted, payments first. US could care less about "freedom or democracy" if those don't deliver monetary benefits to US economy.
There will never be a "trust" like one existed during perestroika..... US ruined it.
That's why anti-Americanism is so rampant in Russia now.

KGBMan:

All this care about baby-killing never stopped and doesn't stop now all the baby-killing US military does on daily basis. So, that's not an argument.

Oh, come on, our hawks would kill 1000x more babies had it not been for our doves.  Yeah, we kill to many as it is, these points are not contradictory.

Yes, US moral principles are very flexible, I know. We have to be thankfull that US kills only 1000 babies a year, instead of 1000000 ... ya, I know.

 

KGBMan:

It is more prone to extremes in everything, except foreign policy. There it was rock solid since we delivered on our promises in 1945.

ok, so which was the most stable?  From Stalin to Khruschev?  from Brezhnev to Gorbachev?  From Gorbachev to Yeltsin?  From Yeltsin to Putin? 

All of them. In foreign policies.

Russia is a woman with chronic PMS.

I grant you, Putin to Putin, was a stable transition this year   But we still can't predict wtf they'll want 5 years from now.

US always wants one thing - economically motivated for the last 200 years, and marketed to its electorate according to what works at any given time.  Liberty, fairness, democracy, self-defense, whatever.  But its always the same thing.

Yep, always the same thing, constant aggression, constant attempts to get unfair economic advantage backed up by the aircraft carriers....

always scared shitless to do anything to provoke any kind of response that can lead to a War.

That's because they always think the West is bluffing.  Including now.  And they are usually right  

No, that's because they knew who they are dealing with. Maniacs.

Oh, c'mon ..... no islamic nation can build 5000 warheads and ballistic missiles to compete with US or Russia even if they slash their stash by 2....

I said "eventually".  If Russia and US are dumb enough to systematically reduce their WMDs, the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction.  

Thats why I say - fight the delivery systems.  50 years from now, if we make it that far, no missle should be able to fly without being destroyed by a satellite controlled global defense system.  Including those launched by the US.  Doesn;t matter to me, I don;t think the US would strike, but it would calm down the critics.  This can't happen w/o Russia, which is why I want them on board   I would even let them bring China and India

Ya, right, if that system will be built it would be controled by the US, or not at all, because US would never allow such system existance if it wasn't under their control.

And guess what ? - as soon as such system is operational - Russia will be destroyed, along with all the other "uncontrollable" nations.
People , who's ancestors already whiped a whole etnic group from the face of the earth will do it again in a heart beat.

They started build up when Russia was not even looking outside it's borders, at a time we were completely hopeless ??? WTF ??

No one here trusted that Russia was hopeless.  At best, the dumbest people here, hoped they'd become like Australia or Canada   In which case they wouldn't give two sh*ts about this buildup by an ALLY. 

Yes, this is ridiculous, what i just wrote.   But no one has ever accused the US of being logical.

Smarter politicians here, maybe saw all this coming, it was a given, and they do not believe the installations contributed to it.  Rather, it is a mitigating factor, not knowing what sort of government or interests would control the Russian nuclear arsenal moving forward.  You think its stable, but no one else does.

And you call it stable , rational politics that the world can trust ?
If US was a person, it would spend it's years in a mental institution, talking to Jesus....

military aggression ???!?!?!?!?!?!
what are you smocking ??????!?!?!?!?

planet hostage ????

Why don't you ask the international community. 
I am not going to argue for what I consider to be obvious, I am just informing you of what humanity believes :)

And the world will not forget, KGBman.  Not in our lifetimes.

jeezz, since when humanity is confined to "golden billiard" ???

It's sad when people start to believe in their own lies and propaganda.....

US is the only country which used nuclear weapons on civilian population, is the only country which considers itself all about democracy, yet armed, supported and trained dictatorships all over the planet, created and trained death squads in Latin America, started most wars in last and this century, who's mingling in other peoples affairs created more misery than anyone can imagine - yet it is Russia who is holding planet hostage.

unbelievable.....

 

JB,

USSR took and kept Easter Europe because Roosevelt and Churchill gave it to us on a silver platter for our services in taking care of Hitler and Japan.
So take a log out of your own eye first !

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

Egor:

A normal American wouldn't sacrifice a dinner at Applebees.  95% didn't sacrifice a penny for Iraq, marketed to us as an imminent threat.  I actually think its a good thing, americans are not as easily manipulated by personal problems of their ruling party elite.

Do you want to debate this or do you want to take it back?

Ron Paul said during his campaign in 2007 that the cost of the Iraq war including healthcare for the veterans and interest (government borrowed money for the war) would run 46K per person.  Do you doubt that taxpayers will have to pay that off?  By majority vote I would say that the money given willingly or perhaps letting themselves to be manipulated.

thats off topic though.

---

no, Ron Paul is talking about the way things SHOULD be.

Let's not confuse that with the way things ARE.  No one is paying for this, and if some sado-masochistic generation eventually does, it certainly is not a shirt off the back of any individual who supported this war.  No one reasons this way.  Taxes were lowered at the same time and by the same party.  Imagine if, the people saw Run Paul's numbers, or if a there was a war tax involved.. Or if people know how many lives would be sacrificed? you think the public would have supported this war?

Of course not.  They barely supported it for free. Only a perception by the public of complete lack of cost, allowed this war to occur.  And not just in the financial sense.  But thats a long discussion.

how about if their actual skin was threatened by the response of Iraq?  No one had that feeling w Iraq.  With russia, its implied. 

Of course if the US was truly attacked or threatened, the nation would rise up and sacrifice.  I am strictly talking about made up sh*t and political games.  like w Russia now.  Americans won't buy that, its not worth it.  It's not worth anything.   You'll hear loud words, but that's only bc words cost nothing. 

No one even gets a good smack in the face for words!

 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский