Posted on 09/23/2015 9:53:03 AM PDT by Trumpinator
...I just realized that reply was the post immediately ahead of mine! :)
Sorry, I don’t buy into that “realpolitik” nonsense.
Ideologies are real, and they have more influence, generally, than practical considerations, because humans are only sporadically rational creatures.
Ideologies are real, and they have more influence, generally, than practical considerations, because humans are only sporadically rational creatures.
Not really, even Stalin carried out classic Russian strategic goals of buffer states with Europe and moves towards warm water ports. Even the Afghanistan adventure can be seen as the late USSR moving towards access to the sea.
Yes, sometimes ideology dictates policy but ideology but in this case I see classic "Great Game" politics.
I really don’t care what you think the motivations are, because it doesn’t matter. This move is bad for American interests, no matter what the motive.
Since when are the State Dept's interests the same as those of the American people? See Saudi friggin Arabia.
And then, there is this:
We just got the clearest sign yet that Russia doesn’t really care about fighting ISIS in Syria
Business Insider ^ | 12 Sep 15 | Natasha Bertrand
Moscow will reportedly provide Russian troops in Syria with an advanced antiaircraft missile system as part of its military support for Syrian president Bashar Assad.
“This system is the advanced version used by Russia, and it’s meant to be operated by Russians in Syria,” a Western diplomat who is regularly briefed on US, Israeli, and other intelligence assessments told Reuters.
And as The Daily Beast’s Michael Weiss points out, any antiaircraft missiles deployed by Russian troops in Syria won’t be directed at ISIS, since ISIS has no air force.
In fact, none of the rebels do — only government forces have access to aircraft.
Russia has substantially increased its military presence in Syria over the past two weeks under the guise of helping the embattled Assad fight ISIS and other extremists. ...”
(Excerpt) Read more at Business Insider .
This was on the 12th of September.
Wow, ETL was right about you and your agenda.
If you think Russian troops on Syrian soil is good for America, in any way, shape, or form, you must be a schill.
Which nation's troops do you propose take over Syria? ISIS? The so called Free Syrian Army? Who do you think is the best American choice then?
It's not just Putinator (aka "Trumpinator"), it's a group of them, assisted by various other sorts of useful idiots. Why they are allowed to remain on this site, I cannot understand.
I’m not sure about today, but hasn’t Saudi Arabia been a key ally in shoring up the dollar and keeping oil sold in Dollar denominated assets? The Petro Dollar? Saudi Arabia has been an excellent ally, especially when it comes to funding lesser evils that can be relied upon to further American and Saudi strategic interests.
I’ve asked Putinator (aka, “Trumpinator”) here over 12 or 13 times now to tell us what he personally thinks of KGB Putin, his expansionist agenda in Europe, his terminally “silencing” his political opponents/critics, Russia’s long history of arming and supporting America’s enemies, etc, etc, but he refuses to answer, though he seems to post a quick response to everything else. In fact, he can’t manage to come up with a single negative thing to say about the KGB thug. He’s had that opportunity for about 2 days now.
“Which nation’s troops do you propose take over Syria?”
Meh, that’s just a distraction tactic. We don’t need to propose anything to know that Russia troops moving in there is very BAD for America.
Russia is obviously looking to regain control of many of its former Soviet states in Europe. At the same time they’re looking to substantially increase their power and influence in the Middle East. They, along with the ChiComs, who they are working more closely than ever with, staging joint war games since 2005 in prep for war with us and our allies, are on the move, with Obama’s more or less silent approval and ‘flexible’ cooperation on his various missile defense and nukes deals helping to pave the way.
Sure the Saudis have been a keen American ally to the State Dept. But I rather see all of them Saudi pigs die. I don’t know about anyone else though.
Let me know who you back in Syria and then we can compare.
Then Obama should not have sided with the Syrian jihadist to the detriment of secular Syrians and Christians. If it is bad for America, it is a self inflicted wound. Better the Russians ruling in Syria than ISIS.
Keep asking, but your trolling will avail you not.
I don't 'back' any of the evil bastards there. If I had my way they would wipe each other off the map, like the Russia-backed-Iranians have repeatedly said they would like to do with Israel.
See, I have no problem saying all of these groups and individuals are evil and untrustworthy. Why can't you, after 2 weeks time to think about it, come up with ANYTHING negative to say about KGB Putin, the Russian expansionist agenda, their long history of arming and supporting our enemies, his 'silencing' of political opponents, etc, etc.
I've simply been asking you, for the past TWO WEEKS now, to tell us what you personally think of the ('former') KGB/FSB thug, Vladimir Putin. A day or so ago I've simplified it to: tell us anything you do not like about him, what he's doing now, or has done in the past, and you haven't (yet?) come up with a single thing.
Wrong answer. The right answer is "I back whoever defends the Christians against Islamic extremists". That historically seems to have been the current Assad regime, like it or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.