Trump may claim to never have had a relationship with Putin, but it's really hard to keep buying it whne his daughter is going on vacation with Putin's girlfriend. Who also was instrumental in keeping Ivanka and her now husband together, etc.
Trump is in bed with the Russians, but sadly krg will still vote for him, despite him thinking Russia is a huge enemy.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I mean, Putin has run circles around Obama, so maybe this new notion of Trump and Putin being buddies is a positive one.
I am not opposed to a new era of strategic partnership with Russia. Putin can be a very strong ally. Despite what the propaganda machine might have you believe, he has guided the Motherland quite deftly through some very treacherous waters ... all while strengthening his own power (and domestic popularity) and literally not giving an inch to international pressure.
Last edited by Hawk; 08-16-2016 at 03:23 PM.
Has he though? After the Crimean invasion of sorts the Russian economy tanked. GDP in 2015 was the lowest pretty much since Obama took office. One could argue that Putin's assets aren't tied up in russia so therefor he still gained personally, but that's speculation.Originally Posted by Hawk
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I too am on the "Putin is not the devil" train
Frankly - everyone time I've listened to him speak or read his speech - he comes across as completely rational and has issues with the US foreign policy (just like I do)... I think our media propaganda has made him an enemy unfairly.
I could be wrong, though
cajunrevenge (08-16-2016)
Take a look at what forecasters are predicting about the economy the past few months. The Ruble is up, unemployment is down, foreign investors are returning. Don't forget that Russia was in a recession prior to the Crimean invasion to begin with.
I think the sanctions had a brief shock effect on the market, but as with every other foreign intervention the Obama administration has involved itself in, they just didn't have any real teeth.
Last edited by Hawk; 08-16-2016 at 03:31 PM.
It was bound to rebound as RUssia has a **** ton of resources. Poeple need resources so it was a matter of time. I think Obama won that particular battle. ANd Russia hasn't been able to do much of anything in regards to Syria either despite their desire to just go in there and steam roll the opposition.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I'm really curious to learn how you see it as any sort of win for Obama.
- Russia kept Crimea.
- Russian economy and interests banded together to break a recession in spite of international economic opposition spearheaded by America.
- Russia has advanced into the Middle East. We learned today they are now flying sorties from Iran into Syria.
- There is a lot of imminent talk about Russia invading further into the Ukraine.
Frankly, I don't see how you can chalk it up as anything but a major win for Putin.
As for Syria, it's been an absolute boon for Russia's influence in the Middle East. They are exceedingly better positioned than the United States is for future growth in that region of the world.
Last edited by Hawk; 08-16-2016 at 04:11 PM.
It's a bad look, that's for sure.
thank you weso1!
I have no problem with any ties to Putin. There's really no reason we shouldn't be allies.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
You guys can have Vladimir. When I look at him I see a very bad thing looking for a place to happen. Former KGB officers are hardly ever misunderstood sweethearts and I am fairly certain this ahole isn't an exception to that rule.
Russia kept Crimea, but lost almost all of Crimea's value as tourism plummeted, their rice crop failed, and they have to sink billions into infrastructure because Crimea was dependent on mainland Ukraine's water and utilities.
Russia's interests may have "broken" the recession, but we're talking about a country with a GDP of 2.2 trillion before the invasion, a GDP of 2 the year of and a GDP of 1.3 the year after. Losing over a trillion dollars is a big ****ing deal. More importantly is the value of the ruble which had been hovering in the 30 cents per USD range, has since dropped to as low as 12 cents and hasn't seen 20 cents since November 2014. I'd say the massive impact on it's economy has been huge.
Also Russia tried to advance further into the Ukraine, and failed. Ukraine held onto most of it's other assets. Including some other pro-Russian territories.
Russia hasn't done much in the middle east. They're still pretty much where they were a few years ago. Syria was their puppet but they're weakened. Which is why Russia is getting more directly involved. Me Personally, I hope they get directly involved. Because **** the Middle East. It's the worst. ANd trying to control it without massive genocide is impossible. And Russia is sneaky but in the era of the internet getting away with the horrors of that is almost impossible.
Russia can be better positioned for future growth in the Middle East. Middle East is a failing region. It's only asset is oil. Which oil consumption in the US has been falling, and with the proper handling by our government we could easily become energy sufficient and have ourselves and Canada both be major exporters of oil. Which if we are, the middle east's influence is almost non-existent in the Western World. Russia and CHina can have the middle east as far as I'm concerned.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Well there's plenty of reasons we shouldn't be allies with Putin. I'm all for being allies with Russia, but Putin is a shady mother****er who'll probably ruin the Russian people for his own gain.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I don't think he 'probably' will, he already has.
Dudes a tyrant that murders and imprisons anyone who challenges him.
That may be true, but the invasion of Crimea (née Ukraine) had absolutely nothing to do with acquiring a valuable piece of real estate. The Kremlin paid out under $10 billion USD to reintegrate Crimea - that's chump change, which will have likely paid for itself in a year's time if we're analyzing things from strictly from an economic perspective. That being said, it wasn't a financially motivated invasion, so it's impossible to put a figure on the value of the conquest from Russia's perspective. What is known, however, is that Russia won ... in a very short time, with very little by the way of military investment (they basically sent special forces units in).
You are looking at the economic impact of international sanctions against Russia in a vacuum and significantly overstating their impact. What I think you need to focus on is the recovery in spite of those sanctions. Also, don't forget that the weaker a country's currency is against the dollar (or euro, or pound), the better it tends to be for that country. Influx of capital via tourism, export, etc. This is especially true for large countries - it's like buying low on an investment. Everybody knows that Russia has a sound infrastructure and capable economy.Russia's interests may have "broken" the recession, but we're talking about a country with a GDP of 2.2 trillion before the invasion, a GDP of 2 the year of and a GDP of 1.3 the year after. Losing over a trillion dollars is a big ****ing deal. More importantly is the value of the ruble which had been hovering in the 30 cents per USD range, has since dropped to as low as 12 cents and hasn't seen 20 cents since November 2014. I'd say the massive impact on it's economy has been huge.
Not really. Russia is big on bluster, but they weren't seriously entertaining going past Crimea.Also Russia tried to advance further into the Ukraine, and failed. Ukraine held onto most of it's other assets. Including some other pro-Russian territories.
Without 'massive' genocide? What exactly do you think has been going on in Syria the past several years?Russia hasn't done much in the middle east. They're still pretty much where they were a few years ago. Syria was their puppet but they're weakened. Which is why Russia is getting more directly involved. Me Personally, I hope they get directly involved. Because **** the Middle East. It's the worst. ANd trying to control it without massive genocide is impossible. And Russia is sneaky but in the era of the internet getting away with the horrors of that is almost impossible.
Russia can be better positioned for future growth in the Middle East. Middle East is a failing region. It's only asset is oil. Which oil consumption in the US has been falling, and with the proper handling by our government we could easily become energy sufficient and have ourselves and Canada both be major exporters of oil. Which if we are, the middle east's influence is almost non-existent in the Western World. Russia and CHina can have the middle east as far as I'm concerned.
I see what you are saying about the Middle East being a failing region. I don't entirely agree with you, because the United States isn't doing nearly enough to be energy independent in the way that you describe. I see the country needing access to cheap oil for a long, long time.
Last edited by Hawk; 08-17-2016 at 09:27 AM.
Everybody keeps saying that, but literally the only one I've seen in this thread (from you, OKHawk, KRG) is that Putin is a 'shady tyrant former KGB officer' ... which is exactly the sentiment that Sturg and I referenced with respect to opinions borne out of propaganda.
I mean, I think that Hillary Clinton has been accused of murdering more people than Vladimir Putin has.
weso1 (08-17-2016)
Putin is a globalist. His number 1 goal is a Russian dominated east blending into the West. He dreams of the USSR achieving it's goal. He's certainly a threat to what I want in the world
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Judging by his comments... he's absolutely not.
You can say he's a liar, et all... but like I said, when you actually listen to the guy, he comes accros very reasonable.
I have a russian friend who I trust implicitly... We were watching a Putin speech on CNN one time, and he told me that the subtitles were completely inaccurate and mis-portraying what he was saying completely.
Actions speak louder than words. Putin runs a kleptocracy and like zito said, he's trying to re-establish Russian spheres of influence internationally. He's a Slavic caudillo who certainly isn't dedicated to any notion of free speech or political pluralism. It seems that many on the Right in this country cream their jeans over his "strength," but I wonder if they would feel the same way if someone like him came to power in the US and they were on the other side of the debate. He can obviously do a number of things politically that any US president simply cannot given the difference in the levers of government.
Crimea is tricky because there are so many Russians there, but the Ukrainian/Russian tension has been going on for centuries and the Ukraine has never been able to get its feet under itself because it's been one of those regions of the world that has served as a shuttlecock in the Great Game.
As for the Russian economy, it's still in recession. Growth (or should I say a slower rate of contraction) in the economy is going on, but they still aren't out of the woods. Rising oil prices have probably played the biggest role in what constitutes as their recovery. Their GDP per capita is about 40% of what we have in the US, so good luck with that one.
Worth the watch if you have 12 min.
I was told this was translated accurately
You guys are killing me.
Everybody keeps saying that, but literally the only one I've seen in this thread (from you, OKHawk, KRG) is that Putin is a 'shady tyrant former KGB officer' ... which is exactly the sentiment that Sturg and I referenced with respect to opinions borne out of propaganda.
I mean, I think that Hillary Clinton has been accused of murdering more people than Vladimir Putin has.
Are you serious with this ****?
The question of whether or not we can or should cooperate with Russia is a separate one from whether or not Vladimir Putin is a bloody-handed espiocrat who is essentially running a mafia ring disguised as a state. Are you seriously arguing that he's not?
jpx7 (08-17-2016)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote