The Coming War with Russia

[WIP]

This is nothing but pure Russian propaganda that makes the rest of your post hard to take seriously. The USSR broke a part because it was a collection of many nations that had no attachment to Russia. That is not the West's fault. Those new nations are scared of Russia and saw NATO as a way to protect against Russia who invaded them in the past. These former states wanted to join NATO more than NATO wanted them. And why shouldn't they? What bizarre logic leads you to conclude that these nations should not be allowed to join NATO if that is what they wanted? Do you believe that these nations are not real nations but puppets of Russia? I know that is what Putin believes and his apologists in the West. If Russia feels 'encircled' by a purely defensive alliance then that is testament to the small minded nature of the leadership. It is not the West's fault that Russia is led by children with nukes.

How many puppets does the US have? How would the US respond if Russia was supporting a pro-Russian movement in Mexico? And put in a few Russian bases and missiles, yeah that would really go over well.

The one thing we learned when all of the Orange Revolution stuff started years ago, was that Ukraine is a seriously divided country, and there was no way they could force a Eurocentric government on the east...let alone Crimea. The corruption and problems governing have represented the competing power structures between west and east and previously they made compromises to rule. This time the US...through their NGO's was pushing for a hardline stance that even banned Russian as an official language. How was that supposed to work?

[eyeball]

Recognizing a threat or potential threat does not equate to wanting to go to war. In fact, recognizing and preparing for a threat are a lot less likely to result in war than sticking your head in the sand and hoping it goes away.

Being panic-stricken does not equate to actual danger. In fact preparing for an imaginary threat is even more likely to result in a war.

[GostHacked]

No Russians are the bad guys. Their history is filled with atrocities even against their own people during the Bolshevik revolution. Fascist murderous leaders like Stalin, invasion and occupation of independent seeking countries such as Hungry and Czechoslovakia , Afghanistan supporting the most repressive regimes and terrorist leftist movements, abandoning their allies at the time of need and replacing them by killing their own past servants. Russia has never been a democracy but a dictatorship and still is to lesser extend.

With extensive government survellance and we can look at legislation like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA, (USA) with the C-51 bull in Canada.

Wondering why our government hates freedom and democracy.

[eyeball]

Wondering why our government hates freedom and democracy.

Loathing usually follows fear so a better question would be why does our government fear these things?

[Rue]

Hey how about I come on this board and brag about how I have a closed mind and limited capacity to read unless I agree with the person. Tee hee I should start every thread disclosing I am close minded, limited in tolerance and ability to deal with debate. Heehee. How smug.

Some of us appreciate WIP your comments and read them an debate them out of respect. We debate you out of respect for your right to disagree and debate and you do us the courtesy of responding as we do to you. The comments get heated but you give what you take, no more, no less. That is the point of debate.

Now on this matter I believe the denial of Russia under Putin having an aggressive nature uses the same denial device as the same people engaging it do for terrorism. Because of their bias against the US they colour Russia and Putin as a victim of the US, just as they do terrorists. It for me is the same regurgitated fallacy of leftist trendies.. It clings to the 1960's Vietnam era concept that anything American is evil because of the Vietnam war.

The fact is communism and certain regimes that claimed to engage in it, ran tyrannical, police states, killing millions and the same trendy leftist anti Americans can't admit it just as they would not discuss what the Khmer Rouge did, what North Vietnam did when it first took over after winning its war. No mention from these leftist types about the millions murdered and the education camps just as today there is no mention of the same that Putin runs.

We had a classic example of the idiot Justin Trudeau applauding China's regime. Its typical of this latest self entitled sheltered generation who can't find Russia on a map and like Trudeau think China is groovy..

The cold reality is the Soviet Empire collapsed because it could not sustain the income it needed to generate to pay a police state.It was so over-extended because of out of control military and police expenditures it imploded. Pure and simple. It mismanaged its economy. Its 5 year plans created food shortages, a permanent recession and condemned people to an over-regulated life of misery inciting the highest rates of suicide and alcoholism in the world not to mention gulags and secret police in every aspect of life sucking the individuality out of people.

When the Soviet Union collapsed only Yeltsin had enough power to run Russia and the captive socialist states of the union broke apart. Yeltsin was a drunk, brutal, ignorant but he knew how to exploit the anger of the masses against the former Soviet network.

He did that but was not able to control the organized crime syndicates always a factor in the Soviet Union and who spread and over populated eating the garbage heap of the former Soviet Empire. The ideal breading ground for rats and the Russian syndicate is a garbage heap, i.e., the failed Soviet union.

There was always a black market in the Soviet Union. It arose as a counter reaction to stifling communist economic policies that could not understand market regulation, supply and demand and most importantly of all logistics, or how to transport goods.

The black market developed so people could survive the incompetence with a parallel world where you could get anything at a price.

So with the collapse of the Society Union that black market morphed in size like rats to unlimited amounts of garbage to eat.. It brought together hundreds of black market runners who formed cells and cliques and used brutal force and they are today's Russian mob that runs Russia.

The mob needed an enforcer to protect its loose network of decentralized fiefdoms and so it turned to Putin. Putin ws a KGB agent who worked in East Germany. He was chosen because of his lack of imagination, and his brutal force. He was the ideal enforcer, a brutal, one trick pony who takes orders.

The former communist network watched as the elder layer died off or were sent packing by Yeltsin but the next layer of thirty something communists thinking they would inherit the Soviet Union now found themselves unemployed. Putin rallied them stating, we can take back the country through an alliance with the mob and that is what they did.

Today we have Putin the mob enforcer given ceremonial powers and he can play war an huff and puff and recycle Soviet chauvinism to dettrct the masses from economic failure while the mob flourishes.

The invasion of Crimea was about oil and controlling oil. Russia thought it had paid off Ukraine and created a reliable puppet regime to allow it to under-cut Ukrainian oil so as not to interfere with Russians setting the price of oil from that area of the world.

Some of you can pedal your make believe leftist world where Putin is a hero of the masses, a misunderstood man only trying to protect his children from evil America.

First off some of you need a serious reality check once again.NATO is just a sub-species of the EEC. Its controlled in effect by Germany and France not the US. Its policy coming out of Brussels is not American, its Franco-German. Its decision to engage in an air war in Libya went directly against Obama's wishes. Its approach to Putin is in direct conflict with Obama's.

Obama directly ignored NATO and promoted an alliance with Erdogan in Turkey and got into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and many fundamentalist Muslim terrorist cells contrary to Nato's wishes.

In fact NATO and Putin and for that matter China had much in common-their fear of terrorism and Muslim immigration. China to this day suppresses a civil war with 20 million Muslim Chinese. Russia struggles with its Chechnyans and Muslims in some of its proxy former Societ states it tries to control.

It was Obama who ignited a pissing match with Putin by leading Putin to believe Obama would appease him.To start with Obama bragged he would disclose British and French nuclear sites without their consent if Putin entered into an alliance with him. He did so at a time when Putin just finished poisoning a former Soviet double agent with radioation poisoning in Britain. To this day the strain with Britain and France remains and it resulted in Britain leaving both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama further insulted not just those two nations but Italy and Canada over Libya. Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy all asked Obama to not send in what is today ISIL into Libya and he ignored them.

They then asked him not to alienate Saudi Arabia and Egypt or show too much favour to Turkey because of the constant friction with the other NATO member Greece and he ignored them.

In fact with Nato's full blessing Israel entered into naval alliances with China and Greece to offset Obama's Turkey policy and the military alliance with China and Israel also included Egypt and Saudi Arabia with Nato's full blessing when it felt Obama tilted in favour of Iran after blowing it on ISIL and Yemen. China by forging that alliance sent a practical message it would mediate between Israel and Iran by being an ally of both. Then Merkel sent a blatant message to Obama sending state of the art naval vessels to

Israel as a direct slap to Obama.

Obama has openly feuded with Merkel, Hollande and Cameron over Putin, North Africa, Muslim immigration and terrorism.

You think it was an accident Obama refused to march in Paris with his NATO allies? You think his stating the terrorists did not do what they did because of their Muslim extremists beliefs and referred to their act of choosing Jews to kill as simply a random act was not deliberate?

Merkel warned him his attempts to appease Putin in Ukraine and Syria/Iran just as he is doing now would only empower Putin and Iran but that is precisely what he did.

The European by in was a message to Russia and China not Obama that Europe, China and Russia all did not trust Obama so they had to rely on each other.

Netanyahu engaged in much rhetoric but behind the scenes the military alliance with China and meetings with France, Germany and Russia probably will remain a secret and talked him down from engaging unilaterally in a strike.

As long as China is an Israel military ally it is Iran's no.1 ally and so things will remain controlled.

Putin is a KGB thug No more, no less. He does the bidding of the mob so that his communist buddies can control the government and be given a percentage of the take.

Putin did what all failed communists do, commit Russia to exporting all its oil at a locked in price to China turning it into a satellite oil state. For that reason he won't engage in war. China won't allow that because it would prejudice their need for oil from Russia.

The timing was done because the US is trying to pry Iran out of Chinese control. He can't and he won't because Obama has chosen to ally with a brutal regime that will be violently overthrown eventually in spite of his empowering Iran. China won't care who runs Iran as long as their oil/gas flow is not interrupted.

Obama is out very soon and barring a surprising election will be replaced with a traditional pro NATO US leader who will not deal with Putin in a passive aggressive way as Obama has done causing a realignment.

I do not see a Republican President having friction with Russia or China but with Iran yes. Russia and China will sell out Iran in a second if their interests are not harmed. India the wild card has a lot at stake as well in the region and right now they do not trust Russia or China and I can see them very interested in a Republican President.

Some of you can portray Putin as a brave anti Western hero all you want-he is just a cheap version of Stalin and one day he will mysteriously die and be replaced. You work for the mob, you don't gracefully retire, you end up disappearing with your body parts surfacing as a lesson to those who get too bug for their britches.

Russia right now is smoke and mirrors. Its dependence on oil gives it the identical problem Canada is experiencing only it is addicted to a huge military it can't afford to feed or finance and has rendered it bankrupt. It has excellent fighter jets and in heory a superb tank for ground warfare but it has no food to pay its soldiers let alone sufficient fuel for its jets. It could not survive a lengthy ground war because of logistic issues but if it chose to march into Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, the West would not do thing, not with Obama in office having removed the US military from world operations and rendering it unable to engage in any proper policing on the ground or for that matter in the air

The air war in Syria is a joke. Obama bombs what Putin allows him to. What a farse.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Rue

[Queenmandy85]

Excellent opening article by WIP.

With the subsequent debate about who is the bad guy and the movement of tanks, ships and aircraft, an important point is overlooked. In a war between the west and Russia, the nuclear exchange would be over in less time than it takes to watch an episode of the Big Bang Theory, or roughly 20 - 25 minutes. Granted, it would take a day or two of conventional fighting to reach that point, but after that exchange, 95% of the earth's population would be dead. The remaining 5% would survive for another month at best. As President Kennedy put it during the Cuban Missile Crisis, "The fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth."

[Big Guy]

Excellent opening article by WIP.

With the subsequent debate ... in our mouth."

I assume you do not believe in the principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as a deterrent?

[Argus]

Being panic-stricken does not equate to actual danger. In fact preparing for an imaginary threat is even more likely to result in a war.

Are you saying that Russia is a land of peace and love and respect for all, and that we should simply disarm and not worry? Because that's kind of what you seem to be suggesting. Don't prepare for it. Phsaw! Never happen! That Putin guy is just joshing you!

[Bonam]

I assume you do not believe in the principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as a deterrent?

Well, it worked during the Cold War. I think it's fairly obvious that even with the changed strategic situation today, the US and Russia would do everything possible to avoid large scale direct confrontation with each other.

[eyeball]

Are you saying that Russia is a land of peace and love and respect for all, and that we should simply disarm and not worry? Because that's kind of what you seem to be suggesting. Don't prepare for it. Phsaw! Never happen! That Putin guy is just joshing you!

No, that doesn't square with what I've said now or in the past. I'm all for a strong defence here at home.

You seem to be suggesting that we're a land of love and respect for all too. Surely you of all people are just joshing us.

[Queenmandy85]

I assume you do not believe in the principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as a deterrent?

On the contrary, I fully believe in the principle of MAD as a deterrent.

[WIP]

Excellent opening article by WIP.

With the subsequent debate about who is the bad guy and the movement of tanks, ships and aircraft, an important point is overlooked. In a war between the west and Russia, the nuclear exchange would be over in less time than it takes to watch an episode of the Big Bang Theory, or roughly 20 - 25 minutes. Granted, it would take a day or two of conventional fighting to reach that point, but after that exchange, 95% of the earth's population would be dead. The remaining 5% would survive for another month at best. As President Kennedy put it during the Cuban Missile Crisis, "The fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth."

Thanks, I've been wondering in recent years, why so many American leaders have been pushing for NATO expansion and encircling Russia and China with missiles, military bases and hostile governments since these are nuclear-armed nations, regardless of whether or not they are liked over here! That was something that was always front and center during the Cold War...when an anti-communist politician (like Barry Goldwater) went over the top and seemed to be arguing for full scale war with Russia and China, the cooler heads that prevailed in the Pentagon and military branches would deliberately work against them, because most of the military and political leadership throughout the Cold War were WWII veterans and had a personal understanding of the stakes involved when warfare becomes option #1.

Aside from the US political establishment being overrun by chickenhawks looking to advance their position and even profit on the side from new wars and regime changes, the failures are showing a stunningly high level of ignorance and lack of ability to carefully weigh the pros and cons of military and covert action.

I was listening to an interview a few weeks back on NPR with someone I never heard of before - Emma Sky...a British woman who directed a UN-sponsored NGO and also a pacifist...yet accepted the offer of being named an interim governor of one of the Iraqi provinces early on in the American Occupation. According to an autobiography she was promoting at the time, she was asked because she had already been in the area prior to the fall of Saddam, had some knowledge of the culture and attitudes, and spoke Arabic....things that were surprisingly short in supply among an invasion force intending to set up a provisional government! One of the most shocking revelations was a little tidbit about Donald Rumsfeld...the guy who had been defense secretary before and was supposed to be reforming and remaking the US military forces. It seems that in a talk among staff during one of Rummy's visits, he referred to Iran and then had to have a little help finding Iran on the map behind him! (Sarah Palin wasn't the only Republican who failed geography). No wonder the whole Neocon grand design of turning Iraq into a western-friendly oil producer was a total clusterfuck that has created ISIS, sectarian wars and genocides that never existed before, and has contributed to the mass refugee crisis that Europe doesn't want to deal with today!

Back to war with Russia....I haven't seen anyone here mention it...likely because nobody follows the other side in the Ukraine Civil War, but those "peaceful" Orange Revolution demonstrators we heard so much about back when they were trying to overthrow a Moscow-friendly president, are now killing national guardsmen and causing severe injuries at the same parliament building they attacked when they were disposing of the last government: Ukraine guardsman killed in nationalist protest outside parliament

The story on the latest protests led by right wing fascist parties - Svoboda and Pravy Sektor, are still getting little coverage in MSM even though it's been up on Reuters News Service for more than 24 hours. This is the kind of story they don't want to deal with, because right now the Poroshenko Government appears to have been told by his US controllers to follow through on the Minsk Agreement that grants regional autonomy in the eastern provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk.....the same deal offered up by the east and rejected a year ago and could have avoided the whole damn war in the first place! Instead, the coterie of Clinton advisers (likely including Clinton herself) at the time said no deals other than surrender as the US funded and stage-managed a war against the eastern territories that elevated the status of the fascists who did the bulk of the fighting, and are now taking the order to just go home as a sign to try to overthrow the Poroshenko Government!

And I'm not seeing any signs that any Republicans or right wing media hawks are mentioning the unfolding disaster which actually started a few months ago when Poroshenko and an oil oligarch started arguing about their money. The coverage of this whole unnecessary debacle has been horrible in virtually all western media, because what isn't controlled by rightwing billionaires is under the thumb of the so called "left" like Soros...who was a primary agitator for the civil war and making Ukraine an indebted Eurozone dependent.

[Rue]

The US did not push or initiate the expansion of NATO Eastword.

The first initiative to expand originated with Germany, followed by then newly independent states Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The US did support unification of Germany but not anything else.

It was the former captive states of the Soviet Union who chose to join NATO.

Germany did not want its territory to be the easternmost border with Russia. It wanted a buffer zone so it of course welcomed expansion.

In late 1993 an additional push for NATO enlargement came but it was led by Poland and other central European states.

They wanted to expand the membership in the European Union by admitting former Soviet bloc member states.

It had nothing to do with the US. .

Their request in fact originated because of a speech from Russian President Boris Yeltsin delivered on August 23, 1993, wheeby he stated former Soviet states had the right to join NATO.

In fact this was stated at a press conference in Warsaw when Yeltsin stated NATO membership was a decision for Poland alone and not subject to a Russian veto.

Yeltsin then signed a communiqué with Polish President Lech Walesa; it stated that Poland's well-known position on joining NATO was met with "understanding" by Russia, and did "not go against the interests of other states," including Russia.

source: Michael Mihalka, "Squaring the Circle: NATO's Offer to the East", RFE/RL Research Report, Vol.3, No.12, 25 March 1994, p. 2.

NATO enlargement began after those comments.

It is public record that since 1992, Russia has openly challenged and rejected over and over againthe sovereignty or territorial integrity of its former Soviet republics.

If a country is free to make its own decisions and is a sovereign nation, since when must it refrain from joining NATO because Putin says so.

Here he is posing as a mighty leader in one breath, then in the next shaking like a little pansy over the idea Poland might be in NATO? Give me a break.

This is about Putin believing no former Soviet state should join Nato, i.e., be beyond Russian control. Russia's record in crushing independence in Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh all speak for itself.

His constant threats to invade the Baltic states and his deliberate jamming and closing down of Baltic states internet networks and launching other cuber attacks against them speaks for itself as well.

Let's talk directly about this crap about Putin and Russia being a scared victim of the evil expansionist West-its a crock.

This is about Putin wanting to rebuild the Soviet Union out of his former Eastern captive states calling them the Commonwealth and having them instead turn to an alliance with the EEC via NATO.

Moscow wants to reassert control over the former Soviet states. Its no victim.

Russia's invasion to retake Crimea started in 2005 when it recruited tCrimean youths of Russian descent for indoctrination or as they called it "education" in Moscow at the notorious Seliger camps.

Go find out. That recruitment began at a time when there was not one friggin complaint about Russians being mistreated in Crimea.

Now some of you want to pretend Russia is a victim of the West get this clear. You talk that way because you don't come from former Soviet captive states. Russia and the government Putin now has resurrected is no and was no victim. It was a brutal network of KGB officers and military that crushed and held East Europeans captive. If those people want to be free of Society tyrany it does not make them victimizers of the brutal fascist Putin. It makes them countries free to make their own decisions. No they do not need his permission.

Talk about twisting history. People who broke free of communism and now resist it are not victimizers of Russia.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Rue

[WIP]

Bill Clinton’s Epic Double-Cross: How “Not An Inch” Brought NATO To Russia’s Border

by David Stockman •

May 18, 2014

[Rue]

WIP your article starts with a false premises when it states how NATO expansionism started and blaming that on the US, specifically your article says the expansion..." began as a pledge by the first Bush Administration to Gorbachev that in return for German unification and liberation of the captive nations there would be not an inch of NATO expansion.

That allegation has been proved false. The full allegation wh was that promises were made to then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev by Chancellor Kohl and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in 1989-1990.

That never happened despite the fact it is reproduced today as a fact assumed by so many anti Americans.

In declassified reports of the Kohl and Baker talks with Gorbachev.its now public domain as to what was actually discussed.

In fact James A. Baker, while speaking at the American Academy in Berlin on October 7, 2014, dismissed the claims this promise was made as baseless and then in n October 16, 2014, Mikhail Gorbachev confirmed Baker’s assertion, saying that the “topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed…not brought up in those years.”

Hans Dietrich Genscher, the former German foreign minister, stated the same thing and is on record as stating, “This was never the subject of negotiations, and most certainly not a negotiation result.”

The declassified reports show that what George H.W. Bush, Helmut Kohl and Gorbachev discussed were:

1. the disintegration of the East German SED regime;
2. the Soviet leader’s decision for a united Germany to remain in NATO;
3. uncertainty about the status of the 380,000 Soviet soldiers in the GDR;

4. coming to qan understanding that only the Bundeswehr, not foreign forces, would be stationed in the territory of the former GDR after unification.

source: http://www.theglobalist.com/is-nato-expansion-still-in-the-cards/

So you will have to do better then an article that starts off with something clearly repudiated and renders the entire premises to the article false.

[Rue]

Now again let us address the falsehood that blames the US for making a promise it never did or blaming it for NATO expansion because that is an out and out falsehood.

The actual diplomat for the US representing them for the talks in which the US was falsely accused of promising not to expand NATO has written a book on that specific false claim of a promise.

source : http://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-expansion-was-there-a-promise/

Jack Matlock was the acareer diplomat who served on the front lines of American diplomacy during the Cold War and was U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union when the Cold War ended. Here is what he said about the alleged promise in an article entitled;

NATO EXPANSION: WAS THERE A PROMISE? written on on April 3, 2014.

I am placing his words down so you can see for yourself that the US did not make any promise and did not initiate any expansion here is what he said:

"The Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda asked me to write an article on what was said regarding NATO expansion during the negotiations concerning German unification in 1990. I submitted the following:

1) All the discussions in 1990 regarding the expansion of NATO jurisdiction were in the context of what would happen to the territory of the GDR. There was still a Warsaw Pact. Nobody was talking about NATO and the countries of Eastern Europe. However, the language used did not always make that specific.

(2) The territory of the GDR did come under NATO jurisdiction with Soviet approval, but not totally. As a result of the two plus four negotiations, it was agreed by all parties, including the USSR, that the territory would be part of NATO but that no foreign (non-German) troops would be stationed there. Soviet diplomats who negotiated that agreement have stated since then that they never thought they had commitments regarding Eastern Europe other than the GDR.

(3) These conversations and negotiations were in the context of a general understanding Bush and Gorbachev reached in December 1989 (Malta Summit) that the USSR would not use force in Eastern Europe and the U.S. would not “take advantage” of changes there.

This was not a treaty binding on future governments. (The 2+4 agreement was a binding treaty, and has been observed.) The Malta understanding was between President Bush and President Gorbachev. I am sure that if Bush had been re-elected and Gorbachev had remained as president of the USSR there would have been no NATO expansion during their terms in office. There was no way either could commit successors, and when Gorbachev was deposed and the USSR broke up, their understandings became moot. Even formal treaty agreements are subject to the “rebus sic stantibus” principle; when the Soviet Union collapsed–something the U.S. neither desired nor caused–the “circumstances” of 1989 and 1990 changed radically.

When NATO expansion occurred some years later it was not the result of some U.S. or NATO decision to press eastward or to threaten Russia. The impetus came from the East European countries, particularly Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and initially was supported vigorously only by the smaller or less populous NATO countries (e.g., Denmark, Canada). The U.S. crafted the Partnership for Peace in an effort to avoid expanding NATO’s military structure. This policy did not satisfy the East European governments, however.

Because of their historical experience–does anyone today recall the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?–they insisted on full NATO membership."

On this one WIP I challenged you and took the time to show you why. I appreciate you might not want to read past a headline. Some of us do.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Rue

[Big Guy]

Canadian airplanes are dropping bombs on ISIS.

American air planes are dropping bombs on ISIS.

Syrian airplanes are dropping bombs on ISIS.

Russia is suppying bombs for Syria to drop on ISIS.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/voices-concern-russia-military-buildup-syria-150905172500917.html

Americans are concerned that Russia is supplying bombs for Syria to drop on ISIS like Canada and USA is doing.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/05/201351844642727661.html

Does anybody there have a clue who they are fighting and who are their allies?

We are being played like a fine, fine fiddle.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Big Guy

[Derek 2.0]

Does anybody there have a clue who they are fighting and who are their allies?

Yes, the West is fighting ISIS/ISIL........Syria is fighting ISIS/ISIL, in addition to non aligned groups, like other Muslims and Kurds attempting to overthrow the Assad regime........And from your link, the Americans are concerned with Russia supplying Assad because:

The US fears Russia's alleged military buildup in Syria would counter Syrian groups who are battling both ISIL and government troops.

Such groups would be the Kurdish Peshmerga for example.....

[ReeferMadness]

International politics are usually a cesspool of hypocrisy. Politicians know that they can generally get away with gross mischaracterizations of is going on because most news organizations find it cheaper and easier to parrot what the government tells them than figure out what is really going on. Usually, it turns out that both sides are partly right and partly wrong and this situation seems to be no different.

I generally rely on independent commentators like Gwynne Dyer to help me figure out what is really going on. Here is what he said about Putin:

He was wrong to respond as he did, taking back the province of Crimea (which had an overwhelmingly Russian population but had been bundled into Ukraine in a Communist-era decision in 1954). He was very wrong to back the rebellion in the eastern Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk. If he actually encouraged them to rebel (which is not clear) he is even more in the wrong. It is all being done in defiance of international law.

But he is not setting out down the path of world conquest. He is not even planning to take over Ukraine. “Standing up to Putin” is an invigorating moral exercise, but it is not strictly speaking necessary.

[eyeball]

International politics are usually a cesspool of hypocrisy. Politicians know that they can generally get away with gross mischaracterizations of is going on because most news organizations find it cheaper and easier to parrot what the government tells them than figure out what is really going on. Usually, it turns out that both sides are partly right and partly wrong and this situation seems to be no different.

I generally rely on independent commentators like Gwynne Dyer to help me figure out what is really going on. Here is what he said about Putin:

“Standing up to Putin” is an invigorating moral exercise, but it is not strictly speaking necessary.

It's a pretty classic example of a pot standing up to a kettle alright and strictly for show here at home. I bet not being able to provide Putin and his oligarchs western financial services must be starting to chafe somewhere, especially knowing he's probably picking up the slack on the revenue side by draining Assad and his cronies bank accounts in the meantime.

No doubt Putin is enjoying the opportunity to wave Assad in the west's face, like Braveheart hiking up his kilt in England's.

[WIP]

Canadian airplanes are dropping bombs on ISIS.

American air planes are dropping bombs on ISIS.

Syrian airplanes are dropping bombs on ISIS.

Russia is suppying bombs for Syria to drop on ISIS.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/voices-concern-russia-military-buildup-syria-150905172500917.html

Americans are concerned that Russia is supplying bombs for Syria to drop on ISIS like Canada and USA is doing.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/05/201351844642727661.html

Does anybody there have a clue who they are fighting and who are their allies?

We are being played like a fine, fine fiddle.

ISIS would not exist if it wasn't for the mess created through regime change in Iraq. The demagoguing of certain dictators like Saddam Hussein, Assad and Qadaffi, makes no sense when US policymakers have protected useful dictators and mass murderers with the other hand....as in Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, Egypt and until very recently - Guatemala. Too bad almost nobody is following this story, but the whole debacle of the Guatemalan President - Molina, being removed from office and charged with corruption...and likely war crimes also, should be a major story in the news also. The reason it's not is likely because Molina was a henchman of the long-disgraced and finally prosecuted Ephraim Rios-Montt, who was set up in power by the Reagan Administration under their bullshit excuse of fighting the spread of communism. Rios-Montt, Molina and a whole host of School of the Americas graduates populate an infamy list of the worst war criminals in the world....so why isn't the US identified as the worst purveyor of war crimes, terrorism and evil in the world? Only because they own the goddamed show!

But, getting to Putin and the recent charges that he is "interfering in Syria." The latest story is that Putin...who some Washington observers were speculating, was about to cut Assad lose and let him fall, appears to be digging in his heels and not willing to let another regime change turn another Russia ally into anarchy and a failed state! Russia has a naval base in Syria....which may be Russia's only foreign naval base...compare that to the thousands of fully equipped and lilypad bases the US has around the world. Plus, if international law means anything...whether you like Assad or not, he is the president of the Legitimate, recognized government of Syria! Not the so called "moderate" rebels that Moosehead...I mean John Kerry talks about!

So, if the rumours are true that Russia is going to send in 1000 Russian soldiers and set up another base, they are dealing with the recognized government of Syria, while the US, Canada and a ragtag assortment of anti-Assad forces like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are supporting dubious Islamist forces that will likely patch over to the ISIS motorcycle club after the fighting is over.

[Rue]

Reefer I am a huge Gwynne Dyer fan too. I read the stuff you pointed out. For what its worth I think Putin is an old time communist and very chauvenistic and sees the expansion of Nato a slap across his macho face that needs him to posture and show how tough he is back home. I think people underestimate the intensity and lengthy history of Russian chauvenism. Its a deeply entrenched sentiment. Russians do not like to be perceived as weak or dependent on the West. Its a pride thing in simplistic terms.

I personally believe though Putin lies, manipulates and is a puppet of the Russian mob. Don't like him. I find his two faced behaviour in the ME not to mention the Ukraine tell-tale but its also foolish to underestimate the lack of trust that exists between many countries not just Russia towards Germany.

WW2 is still very much a fresh wound in the collective psyche of Russia. NATO is today perceived as being run by Russia and France not the US. A lot of the Ukraine tension is still a war over perceived pro Nazi Ukrainians in WW2 and the Ukrainian animosity against Stalin and Russia and that is a fact and its there and its not going anywhere.

I subscribe to the theory that Ukraine should be an independent nation and Russia illegally invaded it and feels it is part of Russia, will always feel that way and wants the entire Ukraine back and will continue to wage his proxy war until he gets it back and NATO won't do anything.

I subscribe to the theory that Putin thought he could rebuild the Soviet Union calling it instead the Commonwealth of Independent States. I think he is and will always be a KGB thug and sees all of Eastern Europe Russian property.

Eastern European states demanded membership into NATO which triggered the expansion. They are and will not forget their years of brutal occupation by the Soviet Empire.

The practical reality though is no full fledged war will break out. There will be isolated proxy wars yes as there have been in Georgia, Ukraine-Crimea but me personally I am not sure Putin wants an actual all out traditional military war. He does not have the logistics to do that. He can barely feed and fund his army. It can invade for sure, but staying n the ground for long, If it could it would have seized all of Ukraine long ago.

The US has started an economic war to destaibilize the ruble by lowering oil prices and it is impacting but its also taking a toll on Canada, Euro, China and the US all inter connected to the Chinese market collapse related to the oil prices. Its a dangerous move and it may come back to haunt Obama.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Rue

[Argus]

The US did not push or initiate the expansion of NATO Eastword.

The first initiative to expand originated with Germany, followed by then newly independent states Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The US did support unification of Germany but not anything else.

It was the former captive states of the Soviet Union who chose to join NATO. Germany did not want its territory to be the easternmost border with Russia. It wanted a buffer zone so it of course welcomed expansion.

In late 1993 an additional push for NATO enlargement came but it was led by Poland and other central European states.

They wanted to expand the membership in the European Union by admitting former Soviet bloc member states.

It had nothing to do with the US. .

Yes, all that matches with my memory of how things worked out.

[Big Guy]

Putin, that awful dictator who is the scourge of the West (including Canada) and to whom we are applying sanctions to stop their aggressive actions in the Ukraine, just had a visitor. He was visited by another nation leader who understands the process of absorbing land - Netanyahu!

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/israel-pm-visits-russia-army-buildup-syria-150921124614621.html

Bibbi and Vlad had a photo op shaking hands and coming to some kind of agreement. Reporting from Moscow, Al Jazeera's Peter Greste said that Israel had made it clear "that they don't see Russia as a threat" in Syria.

I guess Netanyahu was doing what he thinks is best for Israel and making sure Israel is keeping out of this fiasco and letting the West do the fighting. I commend Netanyahu for prioritizing his country.

Now if our Canadian leadership would prioritize what is best for Canada and wipe our hands of Israel and look towards Iran for the future of the Middle East then we may save the lives of future Canadian soldiers.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Big Guy

[Argus]

Now if our Canadian leadership would prioritize what is best for Canada and wipe our hands of Israel and look towards Iran for the future of the Middle East then we may save the lives of future Canadian soldiers.

You have yet to explain how 'wiping of hands' of Israel, a democratic nation, and befriending a brutal theocratic dictatorship which executes more people every year than anyone but China, and tortures many to death, will help Canada in any way, let alone, bizarrely, save the lives of Canadian soldiers.