whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Just a reminder that Redbrickbear thinks

- Russia is on the other side of the planet (you need to talk to Sarah Palin)

- Russia is our friend and they haven't been focused on destroying western society for the last 50 years

---

- 99% of Americans live in the contiguous USA…85% of Russians live in European Russia

4,800 miles between those regions


In your Palin comment… anchorage Alaska and Vladivostok are 3,000+ miles away from each other (basically nothing but tundra and frozen wastes between them)


-your side thinking Russia is an "existential enemy"…this is wild.

We have no long term history of conflict with the Russian people. And we live far from their traditional sphere of influence.

It's pure insanity for people to even think that they are an existential enemy of ours…much less come out and say it outright

But of course I have never said they are a friend

---

Miami and Seattle are 3300 miles apart. You are a moron, lmao

---

And Sydney & Perth are 2,000 miles apart

While Moscow & Vladivostok is 5,000 miles apart

You are failing to prove anything

The Contiguous United States and the Russia Federation (especially its population centers) are far from each other.

You act like we are historic next door's neighbors and competing for power and hegemony in the same back yard.

---

NYC is 2500mi away from LA. An entire continent separates them. Yet, the residents of the two states have strikingly similar worldview, more in common with each other than with all but one or two of the 41 states between them….

---

And yet both cities are in the same country

But if you are trying to make the argument that continent spanning nations are hard to keep together because of the inherent geographic challenges….(Along with cultural and ethnic challenges)…..then you might have a point.

The USA should focus on itself for a while and be wary of "imperial" over reach

Many great powers have broken themselves by attempting to expand far beyond their traditional sphere of influence and run into disaster

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

Bingo.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

Bull ****.

---

Not studied any history since the 1940's?

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best way to know whether Russia is acting in good faith is to act in good faith ourselves and see how they respond. It's our own fault that was never tried.

---

Don't have to go nearly that deep. Just stop at both countries being led by dictators who despise freedom and liberty and will do anything and everything to suppress it.

---

Indeed.

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Just a reminder that Redbrickbear…

My best guess is he has a lot of kids from a Russian mail order bride

---

Your Slavic-phobia not withstanding there are a cute chicks in Russia

But my wife was born in East Texas and has a Baylor bachelors degree (and a masters)

---

Maybe you should let your wife type for you

---

Pot calling the kettle black. You racist you!

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

When? Around the same time as the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, when Russia gradually moved toward a centralized, state-run and tightly-controlled economy (though it really wasn't capitalist before that either). In the 80's, it began instituting reforms that began the slow process of moving toward a more capitalist economy, and of course in the early 90's Yeltsin issued several capitalist reforms, though many of those have gone by the wayside. It's more a kleptocracy than a capitalist society under Putin.

I of course understand that in the past the location of the country is what made it an adversary. But not with the invention of nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and bases around the world.

If your point is we shouldn't be Russia's adversary, I think that's a different argument altogether. But the Soviet Union chose a path (and so did we, FTR) of counterbalancing the US back in the early 50's. It set us up for conflict.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's absolutely not true that Tymoshenko was the only remaining issue. The West refused to negotiate on austerity and expressly--not my interpretation, expressly--demanded that Ukraine deal exclusively with the EU. I've documented this time and again.

The point of the 2021 article was to show what some Westerners hoped to gain as a result of the war. Russia was never going to be China's equal. What it can do is shift the balance of power one way or another between the US and China. The Ukraine war and the largely failed sanctions that you're still celebrating have backfired spectacularly in that respect. Trump seems to be trying to salvage the situation or at least mitigate the damage, with how much success remains to be seen.

---

First, of course the EU pushed Ukraine toward structural reforms, just like it has with many other member and candidate states. That's not coercion, it's a condition for integration into a modern, rules based economic system. These reforms weren't about punishment they were about long-term stability.

And the necessity of those reforms isn't theoretical. Just look at Greece. When it rejected austerity in favor of anti reform populism, it didn't liberate its economy, it triggered a collapse that wiped out a quarter of its GDP, devastated its banking sector, and forced humiliating bailouts on worse terms later. Regardless, Ukraine and the EU had already agreed on a framework to address reform issues, the Tymoshenko case was the only truly outstanding dispute at the time.

Second, the EU's refusal of trilateral negotiations wasn't about being coercive, it was about protecting Ukraine's sovereignty. Bilateral negotiations are the standard model for Association Agreements just like many others before. Bringing Russia in would have granted Moscow an implicit veto over Ukraine's future, treating it like a satellite, not an independent nation. But let's be honest, Russia didn't want a cooperative trilateral framework, it wanted to block Ukraine's westward integration altogether as evidenced by their words and actions. And it's worth noting nothing in the agreement restricted commerce with Russia, it simply applied standards that Russia (and historically Ukraine) had avoided, fueling their systemic corruption.

Finally, you can spin Russia's current state however you like, but while sanctions haven't stopped the war, they have massively undermined Russia's economic position outside of wartime production. Frankly, without the Ukraine conflict artificially boosting arms and energy sectors, Russia would already be facing deep recessionary conditions. They will likely need broad sanctions relief just to avoid a prolonged depression, or else fall even further into dependency as an economic subject of Beijing. At least you now acknowledge they have no strategic leverage with China and are merely a junior partner.

---

Russia had a stake by way of existing trade agreements that stood to be affected. Even if you don't accept that they wanted a trilateral framework, the fact remains that Ukraine did. It's difficult to take seriously the argument that we were protecting Ukraine from the threat of talks when they were the ones requesting them. Not to mention what happened to their sovereignty once Yanukovych dared to cross us.

Many in Ukraine and the West considered the austerity measures excessive if not outright predatory. They questioned whether the promised rewards were worth the undeniable cost. This is part of a larger, ongoing debate about the IMF and its policies around the world. We will have different opinions about that, but to claim Tymoshenko's fate was the only outstanding issue is flatly opposite the truth.

Broad sanctions relief is not on Putin's radar and never has been. He expects sanctions to be a more or less permanent feature of Russia's relations with the West, and he's told the business community as much.

---

The fact that Russia had trade ties with Ukraine didn't entitle it to veto Ukraine's sovereign economic decisions. Having a "stake" isn't the same as having a right to dictate a neighbor's future. By your logic, every country that trades with another would be entitled to intervene in their treaties and domestic choices, which would collapse the entire system of international relations.

On austerity and other matters, EU association agreements are not IMF bailouts. They involved standards, some difficult for countries coming out of corruption driven economies, to align Ukraine's with European norms. But Ukraine had a choice, and no external party was threatening to destroy its economy if it moved toward modernization. Russia did.

Finally, the fact that Putin expects sanctions to be permanent shows Russia has locked itself into permanent economic decline and dependency on China, with no path back to real strategic autonomy unless the West does them a solid for a peace deal.

---

Russia can't veto anything. They can apply their protectionist measures and sanctions, to which they have as much right as we do.

The world will get along fine without any American peace deal. It was always just a matter of time until we lost interest in Ukraine and some form of stability returned.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

When? Around the same time as the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, when Russia gradually moved toward a centralized, state-run and tightly-controlled economy (though it really wasn't capitalist before that either). In the 80's, it began instituting reforms that began the slow process of moving toward a more capitalist economy, and of course in the early 90's Yeltsin issued several capitalist reforms, though many of those have gone by the wayside. It's more a kleptocracy than a capitalist society under Putin.

I of course understand that in the past the location of the country is what made it an adversary. But not with the invention of nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and bases around the world.

If your point is we shouldn't be Russia's adversary, I think that's a different argument altogether. But the Soviet Union chose a path (and so did we, FTR) of counterbalancing the US back in the early 50's. It set us up for conflict.

---

The Soviet Union was not a Russian state

It was established through a bloody coup and was anti-Russian nationalist for its entire existence

But I can see this constant thread running through the arguments on this forum.

The Soviet Union existed and was an adversary of the USA during the post World War II era( though of course DC allied with the USSR in that war)……

Because the USSR was an enemy then modern Russia and the Russian people are now always an enemy.

This is a logical fallacy, bad history, and even worse long strategic thinking

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's absolutely not true that Tymoshenko was the only remaining issue. The West refused to negotiate on austerity and expressly--not my interpretation, expressly--demanded that Ukraine deal exclusively with the EU. I've documented this time and again.

The point of the 2021 article was to show what some Westerners hoped to gain as a result of the war. Russia was never going to be China's equal. What it can do is shift the balance of power one way or another between the US and China. The Ukraine war and the largely failed sanctions that you're still celebrating have backfired spectacularly in that respect. Trump seems to be trying to salvage the situation or at least mitigate the damage, with how much success remains to be seen.

---

First, of course the EU pushed Ukraine toward structural reforms, just like it has with many other member and candidate states. That's not coercion, it's a condition for integration into a modern, rules based economic system. These reforms weren't about punishment they were about long-term stability.

And the necessity of those reforms isn't theoretical. Just look at Greece. When it rejected austerity in favor of anti reform populism, it didn't liberate its economy, it triggered a collapse that wiped out a quarter of its GDP, devastated its banking sector, and forced humiliating bailouts on worse terms later. Regardless, Ukraine and the EU had already agreed on a framework to address reform issues, the Tymoshenko case was the only truly outstanding dispute at the time.

Second, the EU's refusal of trilateral negotiations wasn't about being coercive, it was about protecting Ukraine's sovereignty. Bilateral negotiations are the standard model for Association Agreements just like many others before. Bringing Russia in would have granted Moscow an implicit veto over Ukraine's future, treating it like a satellite, not an independent nation. But let's be honest, Russia didn't want a cooperative trilateral framework, it wanted to block Ukraine's westward integration altogether as evidenced by their words and actions. And it's worth noting nothing in the agreement restricted commerce with Russia, it simply applied standards that Russia (and historically Ukraine) had avoided, fueling their systemic corruption.

Finally, you can spin Russia's current state however you like, but while sanctions haven't stopped the war, they have massively undermined Russia's economic position outside of wartime production. Frankly, without the Ukraine conflict artificially boosting arms and energy sectors, Russia would already be facing deep recessionary conditions. They will likely need broad sanctions relief just to avoid a prolonged depression, or else fall even further into dependency as an economic subject of Beijing. At least you now acknowledge they have no strategic leverage with China and are merely a junior partner.

---

Russia had a stake by way of existing trade agreements that stood to be affected. Even if you don't accept that they wanted a trilateral framework, the fact remains that Ukraine did. It's difficult to take seriously the argument that we were protecting Ukraine from the threat of talks when they were the ones requesting them. Not to mention what happened to their sovereignty once Yanukovych dared to cross us.

Many in Ukraine and the West considered the austerity measures excessive if not outright predatory. They questioned whether the promised rewards were worth the undeniable cost. This is part of a larger, ongoing debate about the IMF and its policies around the world. We will have different opinions about that, but to claim Tymoshenko's fate was the only outstanding issue is flatly opposite the truth.

Broad sanctions relief is not on Putin's radar and never has been. He expects sanctions to be a more or less permanent feature of Russia's relations with the West, and he's told the business community as much.

---

The fact that Russia had trade ties with Ukraine didn't entitle it to veto Ukraine's sovereign economic decisions. Having a "stake" isn't the same as having a right to dictate a neighbor's future. By your logic, every country that trades with another would be entitled to intervene in their treaties and domestic choices, which would collapse the entire system of international relations.

On austerity and other matters, EU association agreements are not IMF bailouts. They involved standards, some difficult for countries coming out of corruption driven economies, to align Ukraine's with European norms. But Ukraine had a choice, and no external party was threatening to destroy its economy if it moved toward modernization. Russia did.

Finally, the fact that Putin expects sanctions to be permanent shows Russia has locked itself into permanent economic decline and dependency on China, with no path back to real strategic autonomy unless the West does them a solid for a peace deal.

---

Russia can't veto anything. They can apply their protectionist measures and sanctions, to which they have as much right as we do.

The world will get along fine without any American peace deal. It was always just a matter of time until we lost interest in Ukraine and some form of stability returned.

---

Indeed, a Russian-controlled Ukraine, with a puppet govt and pariah state that will do Putin's bidding (ala Belarus) is likely Ukraine's future.

Debatable whether that's "more stable," much less good for the rest of the world.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best way to know whether Russia is acting in good faith is to act in good faith ourselves and see how they respond. It's our own fault that was never tried.

---

Don't have to go nearly that deep. Just stop at both countries being led by dictators who despise freedom and liberty and will do anything and everything to suppress it.

---

If that were true we would never have been able to conduct successful diplomacy in the past. Obviously we have been, and with regimes far more dictatorial and ideological than the current ones.

---

Different issue. I was addressing their bad faith. Dictators don't act in good faith.

On your point, yes, we've done business with dictators, but virtually always when the alternative was worse. Plus, unlike China and Russia, those dictators were not actively working to undermine us in every region of the world.

---

China and Russia were never more oppressive to their own people or more hostile to our interests around the world than during the latter half of the 20th century. In that time we worked together to partition Germany, resolve the Cuban missile crisis, establish relations with the PRC after the loss of Taiwan (which was also a "dictatorship," by the way), explore space, establish a broad arms control and security framework, and negotiate an end to the Cold War. Reagan's motto, "trust but verify," was eminently successful. The idea that our rivals are incapable of good faith dealings is not borne out by history. It's hard to contemplate what the world would look like today if our leaders then had believed as you do.

---

Good stuff, but none of that was Xi or Putin.

---

No, those were actual, textbook dictatorships with actual hostility to Western freedom and democracy.

---

For sure. And we "do business" with China and Russia as we did then. As you've pointed out, we do business with all kinds of bad characters. That doesn't mean we trust them, that they act in good faith in the bigger picture, or that we align with them on broader issues.

---

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Mao was the biggest mass murderer in human history, but we can't deal with Putin because he kicked out USAID or something? Makes no sense.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

When? Around the same time as the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, when Russia gradually moved toward a centralized, state-run and tightly-controlled economy (though it really wasn't capitalist before that either). In the 80's, it began instituting reforms that began the slow process of moving toward a more capitalist economy, and of course in the early 90's Yeltsin issued several capitalist reforms, though many of those have gone by the wayside. It's more a kleptocracy than a capitalist society under Putin.

I of course understand that in the past the location of the country is what made it an adversary. But not with the invention of nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and bases around the world.

If your point is we shouldn't be Russia's adversary, I think that's a different argument altogether. But the Soviet Union chose a path (and so did we, FTR) of counterbalancing the US back in the early 50's. It set us up for conflict.

---

The Soviet Union was not a Russian state

It was established through a bloody coup and was anti-Russian nationalist for its entire existence

But I can see this constant thread running through the arguments on this forum.

The Soviet Union existed and was an adversary of the USA during the post World War II era( though of course DC allied with the USSR in that war)……

Because the USSR was an enemy then modern Russia and the Russian people are now always an enemy.

This is a logical fallacy, bad history, and even worse long strategic thinking

---

You seem to be making yet another inane and off-topic argument. Russia was a part of the Soviet Union, and Russia controlled same. It chose the path of reform and Western-values in the late 80's and early 90's, but pretty much abandoned those goals under Putin, who had turned it back into an autocratic state, with an economy tightly-controlled by the state or those loyal to it. It was largely Putin's decisions and precepts that led to the renewed hostility with the West, as ATL so aptly points out above.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best way to know whether Russia is acting in good faith is to act in good faith ourselves and see how they respond. It's our own fault that was never tried.

---

Don't have to go nearly that deep. Just stop at both countries being led by dictators who despise freedom and liberty and will do anything and everything to suppress it.

---

If that were true we would never have been able to conduct successful diplomacy in the past. Obviously we have been, and with regimes far more dictatorial and ideological than the current ones.

---

Different issue. I was addressing their bad faith. Dictators don't act in good faith.

On your point, yes, we've done business with dictators, but virtually always when the alternative was worse. Plus, unlike China and Russia, those dictators were not actively working to undermine us in every region of the world.

---

China and Russia were never more oppressive to their own people or more hostile to our interests around the world than during the latter half of the 20th century. In that time we worked together to partition Germany, resolve the Cuban missile crisis, establish relations with the PRC after the loss of Taiwan (which was also a "dictatorship," by the way), explore space, establish a broad arms control and security framework, and negotiate an end to the Cold War. Reagan's motto, "trust but verify," was eminently successful. The idea that our rivals are incapable of good faith dealings is not borne out by history. It's hard to contemplate what the world would look like today if our leaders then had believed as you do.

---

Good stuff, but none of that was Xi or Putin.

---

No, those were actual, textbook dictatorships with actual hostility to Western freedom and democracy.

---

For sure. And we "do business" with China and Russia as we did then. As you've pointed out, we do business with all kinds of bad characters. That doesn't mean we trust them, that they act in good faith in the bigger picture, or that we align with them on broader issues.

---

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Mao was the biggest mass murderer in human history, but we can't deal with Putin because he kicked out USAID or something? Makes no sense.

---

I've obviously been less than clear.

I've never argued we should have no dealings whatsoever with Russia and China.

In fact, I've done business in Russia for much of my career.

But that is not inconsistent with believing, as I do firmly, that, in the bigger picture, they are not good faith actors. Dictators never are. They despise us and everything about us and want us and our way of life to fail miserably.

They support our enemies/competitors in every region of the world.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an abomination. I'm glad we've supported Ukraine and hope we continue to do so.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

When? Around the same time as the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, when Russia gradually moved toward a centralized, state-run and tightly-controlled economy (though it really wasn't capitalist before that either). In the 80's, it began instituting reforms that began the slow process of moving toward a more capitalist economy, and of course in the early 90's Yeltsin issued several capitalist reforms, though many of those have gone by the wayside. It's more a kleptocracy than a capitalist society under Putin.

I of course understand that in the past the location of the country is what made it an adversary. But not with the invention of nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and bases around the world.

If your point is we shouldn't be Russia's adversary, I think that's a different argument altogether. But the Soviet Union chose a path (and so did we, FTR) of counterbalancing the US back in the early 50's. It set us up for conflict.

---

The Soviet Union was not a Russian state

It was established through a bloody coup and was anti-Russian nationalist for its entire existence

But I can see this constant thread running through the arguments on this forum.

The Soviet Union existed and was an adversary of the USA during the post World War II era( though of course DC allied with the USSR in that war)……

Because the USSR was an enemy then modern Russia and the Russian people are now always an enemy.

This is a logical fallacy, bad history, and even worse long strategic thinking

---

You seem to be making yet another inane and off-topic argument. Russia was a part of the Soviet Union, and Russia controlled same. It chose the path of reform and Western-values in the late 80's and early 90's, but pretty much abandoned those goals under Putin, who had turned it back into an autocratic state, with an economy tightly-controlled by the state or those loyal to it. It was largely Putin's decisions and precepts that led to the renewed hostility with the West, as ATL so aptly points out above.

---

Finally, a dose of the mindless jingoism that's been sorely lacking on this thread.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

When? Around the same time as the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, when Russia gradually moved toward a centralized, state-run and tightly-controlled economy (though it really wasn't capitalist before that either). In the 80's, it began instituting reforms that began the slow process of moving toward a more capitalist economy, and of course in the early 90's Yeltsin issued several capitalist reforms, though many of those have gone by the wayside. It's more a kleptocracy than a capitalist society under Putin.

I of course understand that in the past the location of the country is what made it an adversary. But not with the invention of nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and bases around the world.

If your point is we shouldn't be Russia's adversary, I think that's a different argument altogether. But the Soviet Union chose a path (and so did we, FTR) of counterbalancing the US back in the early 50's. It set us up for conflict.

---

The Soviet Union was not a Russian state

It was established through a bloody coup and was anti-Russian nationalist for its entire existence

But I can see this constant thread running through the arguments on this forum.

The Soviet Union existed and was an adversary of the USA during the post World War II era( though of course DC allied with the USSR in that war)……

Because the USSR was an enemy then modern Russia and the Russian people are now always an enemy.

This is a logical fallacy, bad history, and even worse long strategic thinking

---

You seem to be making yet another inane and off-topic argument. Russia was a part of the Soviet Union, and Russia controlled same. It chose the path of reform and Western-values in the late 80's and early 90's, but pretty much abandoned those goals under Putin, who had turned it back into an autocratic state, with an economy tightly-controlled by the state or those loyal to it. It was largely Putin's decisions and precepts that led to the renewed hostility with the West, as ATL so aptly points out above.

---

Finally, a dose of the mindless jingoism that's been sorely lacking on this thread.

---

If you are able to take your "I loathe my country" hat off for a moment, you'll see in my responses to red that I acknowledged that US actions contributed to the hostility of the two countries. But I suppose I can understand why someone who hates this country as much as you do would believe that to be "mindless jingoism."

But as other have attempted to point out, we aren't dealing with a good actor in Putin, but instead a dictator who has charted a course of conflict with the US - increasingly so.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

When? Around the same time as the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, when Russia gradually moved toward a centralized, state-run and tightly-controlled economy (though it really wasn't capitalist before that either). In the 80's, it began instituting reforms that began the slow process of moving toward a more capitalist economy, and of course in the early 90's Yeltsin issued several capitalist reforms, though many of those have gone by the wayside. It's more a kleptocracy than a capitalist society under Putin.

I of course understand that in the past the location of the country is what made it an adversary. But not with the invention of nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and bases around the world.

If your point is we shouldn't be Russia's adversary, I think that's a different argument altogether. But the Soviet Union chose a path (and so did we, FTR) of counterbalancing the US back in the early 50's. It set us up for conflict.

---

The Soviet Union was not a Russian state

It was established through a bloody coup and was anti-Russian nationalist for its entire existence

But I can see this constant thread running through the arguments on this forum.

The Soviet Union existed and was an adversary of the USA during the post World War II era( though of course DC allied with the USSR in that war)……

Because the USSR was an enemy then modern Russia and the Russian people are now always an enemy.

This is a logical fallacy, bad history, and even worse long strategic thinking

---

You seem to be making yet another inane and off-topic argument. Russia was a part of the Soviet Union, and Russia controlled same. It chose the path of reform and Western-values in the late 80's and early 90's, but pretty much abandoned those goals under Putin, who had turned it back into an autocratic state, with an economy tightly-controlled by the state or those loyal to it. It was largely Putin's decisions and precepts that led to the renewed hostility with the West, as ATL so aptly points out above.

---

Finally, a dose of the mindless jingoism that's been sorely lacking on this thread.

---

If you are able to take your "I loathe my country" hat off for a moment, you'll see in my responses to red that I acknowledged that US actions contributed to the hostility of the two countries. But I suppose I can understand why someone who hates this country as much as you do would believe that to be "mindless jingoism."

But as other have attempted to point out, we aren't dealing with a good actor in Putin, but instead a dictator who has charted a course of conflict with the US - increasingly so.

---

The "dictator = bad actor" argument is a non sequitur. I don't know how else to explain it, so I'll just leave it at that.

As for Putin and Russia specifically, it's impossible to understand the course they've charted unless you understand your own country's grand strategy...something to which Americans seem uniquely allergic.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

Russia isn't capitalist or socialist, but it's more socialist with a mix of oligarchy/nepotism.

Some strong anti-capitalist attributes:

Federal healthcare, police force, railroads, tv/radio, automotive.

Joint federal: airline, oil and gas, utilities, banking, shipbuilding, telecom, insurance.

The state basically determines who runs/controls major private businesses.

Very difficult to start businesses without connections.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

Russia isn't capitalist or socialist, but it's more socialist with a mix of oligarchy/nepotism.

Some strong anti-capitalist attributes:

Federal healthcare, police force, railroads, tv/radio, automotive.

Joint federal: airline, oil and gas, utilities, banking, shipbuilding, telecom, insurance.

---

Those would all apply to Sweden and Denmark as well

[The 'Nordic model' of capitalism

The five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) are often characterized as being welfare capitalist, featuring a combination of free market activity and strong government intervention]

Russia is not an "anti-capitalist" society

Its a capitalist society with a corrupt ruling class and far more corruption than a common Western European country

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best way to know whether Russia is acting in good faith is to act in good faith ourselves and see how they respond. It's our own fault that was never tried.

---

Don't have to go nearly that deep. Just stop at both countries being led by dictators who despise freedom and liberty and will do anything and everything to suppress it.

---

If that were true we would never have been able to conduct successful diplomacy in the past. Obviously we have been, and with regimes far more dictatorial and ideological than the current ones.

---

Different issue. I was addressing their bad faith. Dictators don't act in good faith.

On your point, yes, we've done business with dictators, but virtually always when the alternative was worse. Plus, unlike China and Russia, those dictators were not actively working to undermine us in every region of the world.

---

China and Russia were never more oppressive to their own people or more hostile to our interests around the world than during the latter half of the 20th century. In that time we worked together to partition Germany, resolve the Cuban missile crisis, establish relations with the PRC after the loss of Taiwan (which was also a "dictatorship," by the way), explore space, establish a broad arms control and security framework, and negotiate an end to the Cold War. Reagan's motto, "trust but verify," was eminently successful. The idea that our rivals are incapable of good faith dealings is not borne out by history. It's hard to contemplate what the world would look like today if our leaders then had believed as you do.

---

Good stuff, but none of that was Xi or Putin.

---

No, those were actual, textbook dictatorships with actual hostility to Western freedom and democracy.

---

For sure. And we "do business" with China and Russia as we did then. As you've pointed out, we do business with all kinds of bad characters. That doesn't mean we trust them, that they act in good faith in the bigger picture, or that we align with them on broader issues.

---

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Mao was the biggest mass murderer in human history, but we can't deal with Putin because he kicked out USAID or something? Makes no sense.

---

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an abomination. I'm glad we've supported Ukraine and hope we continue to do so.

---

Was the USA invading iraq an abomination?

Powerful countries invade others to peruse their own geo-strategic interests.

The real question is do you want to put troops into the war to stop Russia from doing that....

So far if you just want us shipping them weapons then we are just prolonging a war that Ukraine can not win.....10 years on and they have not retaken Donbas or Crimea

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best way to know whether Russia is acting in good faith is to act in good faith ourselves and see how they respond. It's our own fault that was never tried.

---

Don't have to go nearly that deep. Just stop at both countries being led by dictators who despise freedom and liberty and will do anything and everything to suppress it.

---

If that were true we would never have been able to conduct successful diplomacy in the past. Obviously we have been, and with regimes far more dictatorial and ideological than the current ones.

---

Different issue. I was addressing their bad faith. Dictators don't act in good faith.

On your point, yes, we've done business with dictators, but virtually always when the alternative was worse. Plus, unlike China and Russia, those dictators were not actively working to undermine us in every region of the world.

---

China and Russia were never more oppressive to their own people or more hostile to our interests around the world than during the latter half of the 20th century. In that time we worked together to partition Germany, resolve the Cuban missile crisis, establish relations with the PRC after the loss of Taiwan (which was also a "dictatorship," by the way), explore space, establish a broad arms control and security framework, and negotiate an end to the Cold War. Reagan's motto, "trust but verify," was eminently successful. The idea that our rivals are incapable of good faith dealings is not borne out by history. It's hard to contemplate what the world would look like today if our leaders then had believed as you do.

---

Good stuff, but none of that was Xi or Putin.

---

No, those were actual, textbook dictatorships with actual hostility to Western freedom and democracy.

---

For sure. And we "do business" with China and Russia as we did then. As you've pointed out, we do business with all kinds of bad characters. That doesn't mean we trust them, that they act in good faith in the bigger picture, or that we align with them on broader issues.

---

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Mao was the biggest mass murderer in human history, but we can't deal with Putin because he kicked out USAID or something? Makes no sense.

---

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an abomination. I'm glad we've supported Ukraine and hope we continue to do so.

---

Was the USA invading iraq an abomination?

Powerful countries invade others to peruse their own geo-strategic interests.

The real question is do you want to put troops into the war to stop Russia from doing that....

So far if you just want us shipping them weapons then we are just prolonging a war that Ukraine can not win.....10 years on and they have not retaken Donbas or Crimea

---

No it was not. Hussein was an enemy. He broke the agreements. He tried to assassinate GW Bush. We thought he had WMD. In hindsight, it was a bad decision.

Yes, powerful countries sometimes try to take over countries. But that is very rare these days, and we have the right to oppose.

You know my answer. I have never supported US troops in Ukraine.

Ukraine has fought to a stalemate. if we continue to support, Russia may have to fold.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

Russia isn't capitalist or socialist, but it's more socialist with a mix of oligarchy/nepotism.

Some strong anti-capitalist attributes:

Federal healthcare, police force, railroads, tv/radio, automotive.

Joint federal: airline, oil and gas, utilities, banking, shipbuilding, telecom, insurance.

---

Those would all apply to Sweden and Denmark as well

[The 'Nordic model' of capitalism

The five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) are often characterized as being welfare capitalist, featuring a combination of free market activity and strong government intervention]

Russia is not an "anti-capitalist" society

Its a capitalist society with a corrupt ruling class and far more corruption than a common Western European country

---

Yes, and many (wrongly) call them socialist countries despite being far less socialistic and far less nepo/oligarchy, and much more freedom and liberty.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best way to know whether Russia is acting in good faith is to act in good faith ourselves and see how they respond. It's our own fault that was never tried.

---

Don't have to go nearly that deep. Just stop at both countries being led by dictators who despise freedom and liberty and will do anything and everything to suppress it.

---

If that were true we would never have been able to conduct successful diplomacy in the past. Obviously we have been, and with regimes far more dictatorial and ideological than the current ones.

---

Different issue. I was addressing their bad faith. Dictators don't act in good faith.

On your point, yes, we've done business with dictators, but virtually always when the alternative was worse. Plus, unlike China and Russia, those dictators were not actively working to undermine us in every region of the world.

---

China and Russia were never more oppressive to their own people or more hostile to our interests around the world than during the latter half of the 20th century. In that time we worked together to partition Germany, resolve the Cuban missile crisis, establish relations with the PRC after the loss of Taiwan (which was also a "dictatorship," by the way), explore space, establish a broad arms control and security framework, and negotiate an end to the Cold War. Reagan's motto, "trust but verify," was eminently successful. The idea that our rivals are incapable of good faith dealings is not borne out by history. It's hard to contemplate what the world would look like today if our leaders then had believed as you do.

---

Good stuff, but none of that was Xi or Putin.

---

No, those were actual, textbook dictatorships with actual hostility to Western freedom and democracy.

---

For sure. And we "do business" with China and Russia as we did then. As you've pointed out, we do business with all kinds of bad characters. That doesn't mean we trust them, that they act in good faith in the bigger picture, or that we align with them on broader issues.

---

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Mao was the biggest mass murderer in human history, but we can't deal with Putin because he kicked out USAID or something? Makes no sense.

---

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an abomination. I'm glad we've supported Ukraine and hope we continue to do so.

---

Was the USA invading iraq an abomination?

Powerful countries invade others to peruse their own geo-strategic interests.

The real question is do you want to put troops into the war to stop Russia from doing that....

So far if you just want us shipping them weapons then we are just prolonging a war that Ukraine can not win.....10 years on and they have not retaken Donbas or Crimea

---

No it was not. Hussein was an enemy. He broke the agreements. He tried to assassinate GW Bush. We thought he had WMD. In hindsight, it was a bad decision.

Yes, powerful countries sometimes try to take over countries. But that is very rare these days, and we have the right to oppose.

You know my answer. I have never supported US troops in Ukraine.

Ukraine has fought to a stalemate. if we continue to support, Russia may have to fold.

---

Maybe....I have to admit that is possible

I just don't see it being all that probable

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

When? Around the same time as the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, when Russia gradually moved toward a centralized, state-run and tightly-controlled economy (though it really wasn't capitalist before that either). In the 80's, it began instituting reforms that began the slow process of moving toward a more capitalist economy, and of course in the early 90's Yeltsin issued several capitalist reforms, though many of those have gone by the wayside. It's more a kleptocracy than a capitalist society under Putin.

I of course understand that in the past the location of the country is what made it an adversary. But not with the invention of nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and bases around the world.

If your point is we shouldn't be Russia's adversary, I think that's a different argument altogether. But the Soviet Union chose a path (and so did we, FTR) of counterbalancing the US back in the early 50's. It set us up for conflict.

---

The Soviet Union was not a Russian state

It was established through a bloody coup and was anti-Russian nationalist for its entire existence

But I can see this constant thread running through the arguments on this forum.

The Soviet Union existed and was an adversary of the USA during the post World War II era( though of course DC allied with the USSR in that war)……

Because the USSR was an enemy then modern Russia and the Russian people are now always an enemy.

This is a logical fallacy, bad history, and even worse long strategic thinking

---

You seem to be making yet another inane and off-topic argument. Russia was a part of the Soviet Union, and Russia controlled same. It chose the path of reform and Western-values in the late 80's and early 90's, but pretty much abandoned those goals under Putin, who had turned it back into an autocratic state, with an economy tightly-controlled by the state or those loyal to it. It was largely Putin's decisions and precepts that led to the renewed hostility with the West, as ATL so aptly points out above.

---

Finally, a dose of the mindless jingoism that's been sorely lacking on this thread.

---

If you are able to take your "I loathe my country" hat off for a moment, you'll see in my responses to red that I acknowledged that US actions contributed to the hostility of the two countries. But I suppose I can understand why someone who hates this country as much as you do would believe that to be "mindless jingoism."

But as other have attempted to point out, we aren't dealing with a good actor in Putin, but instead a dictator who has charted a course of conflict with the US - increasingly so.

---

The "dictator = bad actor" argument is a non sequitur. I don't know how else to explain it, so I'll just leave it at that.

As for Putin and Russia specifically, it's impossible to understand the course they've charted unless you understand your own country's grand strategy...something to which Americans seem uniquely allergic.

---

When I described Putin as a dictator, who has charted a course of conflict with the US, I thought you would understand that qualification meant bad actor. But I forgot you always believe the US to be the bad actor in any situation. My apologies.

And once again, you've repeated that mantra. But I do appreciate the Russian perspective.

🚨RUSSIA OFFICIALLY DECLARES CONDITIONS TO END WAR🚨

Russia has officially declared its conditions for ending the war, according to MFA Lavrov in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper:

1. Demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine;
2. Ukraine must not join NATO;
3.… pic.twitter.com/Plsd4wB0C5

— Patriot in Chief🦅🇺🇸 (@Patriot_N_Chief) April 28, 2025

Assassin said:

---

🚨RUSSIA OFFICIALLY DECLARES CONDITIONS TO END WAR🚨

Russia has officially declared its conditions for ending the war, according to MFA Lavrov in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper:

1. Demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine;
2. Ukraine must not join NATO;
3.… pic.twitter.com/Plsd4wB0C5

— Patriot in Chief🦅🇺🇸 (@Patriot_N_Chief) April 28, 2025

---

They declared this 2 years ago

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Just a reminder that Redbrickbear thinks

- Russia is on the other side of the planet (you need to talk to Sarah Palin)

- Russia is our friend and they haven't been focused on destroying western society for the last 50 years

---

- 99% of Americans live in the contiguous USA…85% of Russians live in European Russia

4,800 miles between those regions


In your Palin comment… anchorage Alaska and Vladivostok are 3,000+ miles away from each other (basically nothing but tundra and frozen wastes between them)


-your side thinking Russia is an "existential enemy"…this is wild.

We have no long term history of conflict with the Russian people. And we live far from their traditional sphere of influence.

It's pure insanity for people to even think that they are an existential enemy of ours…much less come out and say it outright

But of course I have never said they are a friend

---

Miami and Seattle are 3300 miles apart. You are a moron, lmao

---

And Sydney & Perth are 2,000 miles apart

While Moscow & Vladivostok is 5,000 miles apart

You are failing to prove anything

The Contiguous United States and the Russia Federation (especially its population centers) are far from each other.

You act like we are historic next door's neighbors and competing for power and hegemony in the same back yard.

---

NYC is 2500mi away from LA. An entire continent separates them. Yet, the residents of the two states have strikingly similar worldview, more in common with each other than with all but one or two of the 41 states between them….

---

And yet both cities are in the same country

But if you are trying to make the argument that continent spanning nations are hard to keep together because of the inherent geographic challenges….(Along with cultural and ethnic challenges)…..then you might have a point.

The USA Russia should focus on itself for a while and be wary of "imperial" over reach

Many great powers have broken themselves by attempting to expand far beyond their traditional sphere of influence and run into disaster.
A valid concept so poorly stated that it crosses into error. "Traditional sphere" has nothing to do with it. Matters not whether the US "traditionally" dominates Canada and Mexico. Only matters whether or not it actually has the power to do it NOW. Great powers run into disaster when their reach exceeds their grasp. Russia is not the only example of a power which repeatedly does that, but it is one of the better examples of the concept. Over and over and over.....expansion until overreach then collapse. The USA is an example of the opposite - a great power which has repeatedly avoided foreign adventure which collapses the entire system. Has not happened. Ever. Not. one. time.

---

You are emoting concepts necessary to support a pre-determined conclusion - that Russia is not an adversary of the USA. This flies flatly in the face of reality. Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at the USA. Russia has territorial ambitions which zero-sum diminish our interests, sphere of influence ambitions which zero-sum diminish our interests......some of which trigger mutual defense treat obligations. Our interests compete with theirs in the Arctic, in the Pacific, in the Atlantic, etc.... They interfere in our elections, they interfere in the elections of our allies, they steal our intellectual property, they constantly seek to undermine us, our spheres of influence, our diplomatic relationships, etc.....

The cause of the current crisis are myriad:
Russia over-estimated its own power.
Russia under-estimated Ukrainian power.
Russia under-estimated European power.
Russia under-estimated US power.

Not our job to help Russia hold onto pieces of its former glory. Russia either can do it, or not. And they can't. That is Russia's fault. Not ours.

For centuries, Russia has fretted about being the poor cousin of Europe, and recognized urgent need for modernization and liberalization. It. Never. Happens. So predictable. Almost as predictable as the "it's always America's fault" crowd. The bluest and reddist parts of the spectrum have little in common, except for an isolationist worldview in which all we have to do is ignore the world and the world will ignore us.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

I am not sure why you think them being on the other side of the planet makes a bit of difference. Our anti-communist stance, and their anti-capitalist stance, set us up to be enemies right after WWII ended. And then they got the bomb, as we did. And of course, we've fought proxy wars with them for years - in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

Putin by all accounts has a special place in his heart for the Soviet Union. ron is right they have chosen self-harm and conflict instead of embracing Western ideals.

---

-When were the Russian people or the Russian State anti-capitalist?

The Russia Federation is a market oriented economic system (with a lot of corruption at the top of course)

And the Russian Empire itself was slowly moving away from the old serf & agricultural centric system to a pro-growth market economy, with a developed labor market, joint-stock companies, expansion of trade and credit networks, along with strong industrialization. (all that undone by WWI and the collapse of the Russian State of course)

Russia is not inherently anti-capitalist at all. The Russian people are not inherently anti-capitalist

- When countries are close to each other it traditionally increases the likelihood of conflict (over land, resources, sphere of influence, etc). Does not mean it will not happen but very few States have been eternal enemies who were not fairly close to each other

The United States and Russian Federation are not Israel/Palestine

---

When? Around the same time as the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, when Russia gradually moved toward a centralized, state-run and tightly-controlled economy (though it really wasn't capitalist before that either). In the 80's, it began instituting reforms that began the slow process of moving toward a more capitalist economy, and of course in the early 90's Yeltsin issued several capitalist reforms, though many of those have gone by the wayside. It's more a kleptocracy than a capitalist society under Putin.

I of course understand that in the past the location of the country is what made it an adversary. But not with the invention of nuclear weapons, long range bombers, and bases around the world.

If your point is we shouldn't be Russia's adversary, I think that's a different argument altogether. But the Soviet Union chose a path (and so did we, FTR) of counterbalancing the US back in the early 50's. It set us up for conflict.

---

"market-oriented oligarchy?

Milton Friedman smiles.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best way to know whether Russia is acting in good faith is to act in good faith ourselves and see how they respond. It's our own fault that was never tried.

---

Don't have to go nearly that deep. Just stop at both countries being led by dictators who despise freedom and liberty and will do anything and everything to suppress it.

---

If that were true we would never have been able to conduct successful diplomacy in the past. Obviously we have been, and with regimes far more dictatorial and ideological than the current ones.

---

Different issue. I was addressing their bad faith. Dictators don't act in good faith.

On your point, yes, we've done business with dictators, but virtually always when the alternative was worse. Plus, unlike China and Russia, those dictators were not actively working to undermine us in every region of the world.

---

China and Russia were never more oppressive to their own people or more hostile to our interests around the world than during the latter half of the 20th century. In that time we worked together to partition Germany, resolve the Cuban missile crisis, establish relations with the PRC after the loss of Taiwan (which was also a "dictatorship," by the way), explore space, establish a broad arms control and security framework, and negotiate an end to the Cold War. Reagan's motto, "trust but verify," was eminently successful. The idea that our rivals are incapable of good faith dealings is not borne out by history. It's hard to contemplate what the world would look like today if our leaders then had believed as you do.

---

Good stuff, but none of that was Xi or Putin.

---

No, those were actual, textbook dictatorships with actual hostility to Western freedom and democracy.

---

For sure. And we "do business" with China and Russia as we did then. As you've pointed out, we do business with all kinds of bad characters. That doesn't mean we trust them, that they act in good faith in the bigger picture, or that we align with them on broader issues.

---

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Mao was the biggest mass murderer in human history, but we can't deal with Putin because he kicked out USAID or something? Makes no sense.

---

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an abomination. I'm glad we've supported Ukraine and hope we continue to do so.

---

Was the USA invading iraq an abomination?

---

Yes.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The best way to know whether Russia is acting in good faith is to act in good faith ourselves and see how they respond. It's our own fault that was never tried.

---

Don't have to go nearly that deep. Just stop at both countries being led by dictators who despise freedom and liberty and will do anything and everything to suppress it.

---

If that were true we would never have been able to conduct successful diplomacy in the past. Obviously we have been, and with regimes far more dictatorial and ideological than the current ones.

---

Different issue. I was addressing their bad faith. Dictators don't act in good faith.

On your point, yes, we've done business with dictators, but virtually always when the alternative was worse. Plus, unlike China and Russia, those dictators were not actively working to undermine us in every region of the world.

---

China and Russia were never more oppressive to their own people or more hostile to our interests around the world than during the latter half of the 20th century. In that time we worked together to partition Germany, resolve the Cuban missile crisis, establish relations with the PRC after the loss of Taiwan (which was also a "dictatorship," by the way), explore space, establish a broad arms control and security framework, and negotiate an end to the Cold War. Reagan's motto, "trust but verify," was eminently successful. The idea that our rivals are incapable of good faith dealings is not borne out by history. It's hard to contemplate what the world would look like today if our leaders then had believed as you do.

---

Good stuff, but none of that was Xi or Putin.

---

No, those were actual, textbook dictatorships with actual hostility to Western freedom and democracy.

---

For sure. And we "do business" with China and Russia as we did then. As you've pointed out, we do business with all kinds of bad characters. That doesn't mean we trust them, that they act in good faith in the bigger picture, or that we align with them on broader issues.

---

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Mao was the biggest mass murderer in human history, but we can't deal with Putin because he kicked out USAID or something? Makes no sense.

---

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an abomination. I'm glad we've supported Ukraine and hope we continue to do so.

---

Was the USA invading iraq an abomination?

---

Yes.

---

Appreciate the terrorist perspective.

Russia offers a ceasefire to celebrate the defeat of the Nazis. The West recoils in horror at the idea. Just goes to show how fluid alliances can be.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia offers a ceasefire to celebrate the defeat of the Nazis. The West recoils in horror at the idea. Just goes to show how fluid alliances can be.

---

I think these are your best posts as they really highlight what a deranged individual you are in a couple succinct sentence.

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia offers a ceasefire to celebrate the defeat of the Nazis. The West recoils in horror at the idea. Just goes to show how fluid alliances can be.

---

I think these are your best posts as they really highlight what a deranged individual you are in a couple succinct sentence.

---

For some reason, this clip came across my twitter feed = a pastor channeling some serious Sam in a church service. Rarely does one see all the predictable odious nonsense wrapped so seamlessly together in one tidy package.

It's definitely my kind of church. pic.twitter.com/a81lllqMY9

— 𝕊𝔸𝕃𝕋𝕐 𝔾𝕀ℝ𝕃 (@SaltyGirl09) April 29, 2025

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia offers a ceasefire to celebrate the defeat of the Nazis. The West recoils in horror at the idea. Just goes to show how fluid alliances can be.

---

I think these are your best posts as they really highlight what a deranged individual you are in a couple succinct sentence.

---

For some reason, this clip came across my twitter feed

---

Maybe one of your CIs?

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia offers a ceasefire to celebrate the defeat of the Nazis. The West recoils in horror at the idea. Just goes to show how fluid alliances can be.

---

I think these are your best posts as they really highlight what a deranged individual you are in a couple succinct sentence.

---

For some reason, this clip came across my twitter feed = a pastor channeling some serious Sam in a church service. Rarely does one see all the predictable odious nonsense wrapped so seamlessly together in one tidy package.

It's definitely my kind of church. pic.twitter.com/a81lllqMY9

— 𝕊𝔸𝕃𝕋𝕐 𝔾𝕀ℝ𝕃 (@SaltyGirl09) April 29, 2025

---

He does seem like a fun guy to have a beer with though