ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

How the God-Emperor ALREADY saved the world

I have spoken to several Europeans in the aftermath of the US presidential election, and they've all been very curious about what happened, and how it was possible for Donald Trump to win when everything they had heard from their medias indicated that he was a) very, very bad, and, b) certain to lose by a huge margin.

Of course, they were even more deluded than the US electorate, as the European media took the already misleading US narrative and exaggerated it, just as the US media does the same thing in reverse.

What is interesting is their reaction to finding out that Hillary Clinton supported NATO membership for both Ukraine and Georgia. It can be best described as "aghast". Learning about Hillary's foreign policy on Russia also suffices to convince them that Donald Trump was, in fact, the vastly preferable candidate. One man even said, "well, no wonder he won, given that he was clearly running against a madwoman."

Unlike Americans, Europeans take the idea of war with Russia very, very seriously and understand it is something to be absolutely avoided at almost all costs. There are still millions of people who remember the brutal swath that the Red Army cut across Eastern Europe on its way to Berlin. They also understand that a considerable quantity of the natural gas that heats their homes comes from Russia, and that the first consequence of any military action will be for that pipeline to be shut off.

Very, very few Americans or Europeans understood just how serious the danger that Hillary Clinton posed to the world was. First, she supported NATO membership for Ukraine:
The former U.S Secretary of State is a far more vocal critic of Vladimir Putin than her party rival Bernie Sanders. She has argued that Ukraine deserves more military equipment and training and financial aid (the latter dependent on the government’s ability to carry out the necessary reforms). The U.S. Democrat’s frontrunner for the White House has also urged other E.U. states to be more committed to sanctions and has supported the strengthening of ties between NATO and Ukraine (unlike Bernie Sanders who sees NATO expansion as a provocation against Russia).
Second, she supported NATO membership for Georgia, who had already started and lost a brief war with Russia after being encouraged to join NATO in 2008.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington will continue assistance to Georgia in the field of security and defense and supports country’s NATO membership. The Secretary spoke at the opening of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Commission plenary session in Batumi, Georgia. Georgia is strategic partner of U.S. as regards the issues of regional and world security. She stressed that increase in combat readiness of Georgia and matching it with NATO standards continues within the framework of agreement reached by both countries’ presidents, Gruziya Online reports.
Third, the woman who would likely have been Secretary of Defense under Hillary favored direct military intervention in Syria and called for spending $3 billion on military assistance for Ukraine.
The woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region. Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for “limited military coercion” to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a “no bombing” zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels. Flournoy, and several of her colleagues at the Center for New American Security, or CNAS, have been making the case for sending more American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to commit.
Meanwhile, Russia has consistently warned, since 2008 when Ukraine submitted a Membership Action Plan and Georgia indicated its desire to do so, that it would respond to any such actions by invading and conquering both countries. This is just one of the many implicit warnings delivered.
Admission of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO will place Europe on the verge of a large-scale crisis, Russia’s Permanent Representative to NATO added. "One can’t imagine the situation when those countries [Ukraine and Georgia] keep cherishing the hope to join NATO and the alliance really plans to admit them, as this would explode the situation and put Europe on the brink of a crisis, whose size and scale can’t be imagined today," Grushko said.
The warnings are not, as some foolish neocons insist, mere bluff. Russia has already invaded both countries for much smaller provocations than NATO membership. I strongly suspect that the troop movements that were taking place on both sides, which combined consisted of nearly one million troops, indicate that if Hillary Clinton had been elected President, Putin would have ordered the invasion and occupation of Ukraine before January.
I think the idea was for Crimea to become a NATO base as part of this ongoing campaign to surround Russia which has clearly been in the works now for the last 25 years despite the fact that when the Soviet Union fell in 1991 and even before that, the end of the Warsaw Pact, there were assurances that were given to Russia that NATO would not move eastward. Twelve new countries have been added to NATO since that time and Ukraine would have been number 13 and would have been actually I believe the most dangerous from Russian point of view.... I think that it is clear that the United States is pursuing what it views as its interests as it always does, the United States government. In Syria, in the Middle East and in regard to Russia and we, I believe, are very likely to see an even more aggressive policy in Europe against Russia if Hillary Clinton and her entourage come into power with the November 8 election.
For 25 years, the US has been knowingly playing a dangerous game, trying to see how far they can push Russia without provoking it to war. As her record in Georgia, Libya and Syria clearly shows, Hillary has no strategic vision, no understanding of war, and would have almost certainly erred on the side of excess provocation.
Many congressional members say that Putin has not been deterred, but he has, to some degree, because if he wanted to he could order the full-scale invasion of the entirety of Ukrainian territory. That he has kept Russian direct personnel support for the separatists’ brutal aggression relatively small (1,000 military and intelligence personnel by recent NATO estimates) demonstrates that his decisions are rational (to him) and done with some awareness of the likely consequences.
And that is why Donald Trump has been one of the most effective Presidents in U.S. history, even before he has taken office.

Labels: ,

166 Comments:

Blogger Ken Prescott November 12, 2016 11:06 AM  

The world dodged a bullet Tuesday.

Blogger Earl November 12, 2016 11:08 AM  

They should give him a Nobel Peace Prize already!

Blogger pyrrhus November 12, 2016 11:10 AM  

Nuclear war now in the rear view mirror, than God and Trump!

Blogger VD November 12, 2016 11:12 AM  

Why does Russia not want those two countries to join NATO?

For the same reason the USA was willing to go to war to keep missiles out of Cuba. It is their "near-abroad" and they will not permit enemy bases there.

Blogger pyrrhus November 12, 2016 11:12 AM  

O/T https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/18/trump-plan-calls-for-nationwide-concealed-carry-and-an-end-to-gun-bans/

Blogger Ned November 12, 2016 11:13 AM  

Imagine if Hillary had won, and was under investigation. I'm sure that if she thought she could be jailed and/or lose her ill-gotten gains, she is enough of a psychopath to take the planet down with her. Under the circumstances, I agree with #2.

Blogger Jack Ward November 12, 2016 11:13 AM  

Interesting analysis. Could it be that one of the scenarios from the novel 'Victoria' could, in its way, at least, be happening before our eyes? You could probably do worst than have a relatively friendly Russia as an ally.

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 12, 2016 11:14 AM  

How shocking! The EUSSR (((media))) lies just as the "American" (((media))) lies. One (((echo-chamber))) sending messages to to (((another))). Russia's policy is basically the equivalent if the USA's own Monroe Doctrine, with the exception that (unlike the USA's), it does not apply to an entire hemisphere, but to Russia's "near-abroad". MPAI.

Blogger JWM in SD November 12, 2016 11:14 AM  

Because that would choke off their channels into Europe for energy sales and allow for military escalation up to the Russian borders.

Anonymous Rigel Kent November 12, 2016 11:31 AM  

NATO should have been disbanded after the Soviet Union fell apart. After that it no longer had any (legitimate) purpose.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore November 12, 2016 11:33 AM  

Prior to election day, I was stocking up on canned goods, first aid kits, bottled water, and other sundries. I studied a map of my state so as to plot an evacuation route out of my city. The only problem I faced was trying to anticipate when the warning would come for if I were able to do that, I could evacuate before any warning was given. To leave when and after a warning was given could resulte in my family getting trapped in the "Last Rush Hour".

Blogger Al From Bay Shore November 12, 2016 11:33 AM  

@10 Dave Stockman said the same thing! I totally agree with that!

Blogger Balázs Varga November 12, 2016 11:36 AM  

This is why Hungary is relieved. We knew all this without VD having to tell us that.

Russia gets angry, we die in millions. A happy and non invading Russia is essential to our very survival.

Blogger Artisanal Toad November 12, 2016 11:37 AM  

Another cuck spotted, doing what he can to demoralize the people who made this happen.

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2016/11/12/trumps-revolution-has-ended/

I don't know if there's a list of cucks like the SJW list, but if it exists Gary North needs to be on it if he isn't already.

Blogger Cerdic Ricing November 12, 2016 11:37 AM  

It takes a load off my shoulders to know that it's much less likely that I'll get drafted and have to go die, just so the (((globalists))) can have their war with Russia. I was not looking forward to such a war. I'm not very keen on fighting for the country of another nor for the current state of the United States.

Blogger Johnny November 12, 2016 11:41 AM  

Of the various stupid things that Bush did, getting us involved with Georgia was the stupidest, and even stupider was the local political class that went along with it. What were they thinking? Would we actually send a carrier group into the Black Sea? I would hope not. Not unless WWIII has already started.

And at the least we should have delayed expanding NATO eastward. The right thing to do was to give the Russians time to work things out and see what develops.

Blogger Giovanni Dannato November 12, 2016 11:41 AM  

Investigaton would have pushed her even harder to start something to distract from it. Would have been a perfect storm.

Blogger Nate November 12, 2016 11:46 AM  

ya know its funny... the trump camp started with the long view position of "immigration is all that matters" but eventually through the gross incompetence of the democratic party, even that had to be put altered.. because lets face it... immigration doesn't matter much in a post-nuclear-apocalypse world.

In the end.. the most appealing thing about Trump was that he wasn't interested in going to war with Russia. Fascinating isn't it? The man is called dangerous and insane because he wants to avoid thermonuclear war.

I suppose when they said you couldn't trust Trump with the launch codes they meant he couldn't be trusted to use them often enough.

Blogger Billy Ray November 12, 2016 11:47 AM  

They also understand that a considerable quantity of the natural gas that heats their homes comes from Russia, and that the first consequence of any military action will be for that pipeline to be shut off. so they arr willing do almost anything ..to avoid war ...including letting Russia do whatever russia wants like subjugate them and dictate everything that they do..IOW become russian slaves but heh, the nat gas keeps flowing to heat their house and that's what matters. freedom or nat gas freedom or nat gas and euroweenies pick nat gas every time

Blogger Keyser Soze November 12, 2016 11:49 AM  

Kiev in the Ukraine is the historical first capital of Russia. To have it come under American influence / dominance is an affront to Russia's historical as well as geographical sphere. It is a literal slap in the face and kick to the balls of all Russians!

Blogger cheddarman November 12, 2016 11:49 AM  

I think a lot of Believers in the US and Russia were praying hard for the Donald to win.

Anonymous Tipsy November 12, 2016 11:51 AM  

@8 Actually, I'm a somewhat regular viewer of Euronews (it's on my Roku) and it's shockingly left-wing. Completely SJW converged. The days running up to the election, it was an all out assault on Donald Trump. In the face of anti-white pogroms, it worries about attacks on minorities. It's as upside down as anything I've ever seen, and that's saying something because the MSM in the US is pretty upside down itself.

Blogger Billy Ray November 12, 2016 11:53 AM  

yeah, how can we not support russia and everything she does and wants...RUSSIA UBER ALES,,,, putey pute for leader of all the world ,NO, putin for god, yeah that's it, cause putey pute is right about everything and the the USA is wrong about everything. US war mongering BAD, Russian war mongering GOOD

another russia sycophant article

Blogger Rough Carrigan November 12, 2016 11:56 AM  

One thing that hasn't been commented upon here, or in the article is that the U.S. has flagrantly violated the deal it made with Gorbachev at the time of the fall of the Berlin wall.

Gorbachev asked Bush and Baker for assurances that, if the Russians allowed the integration of East and West Germany, that the U.S. wouldn't try to expand NATO closer to Russia.

It's absolutely amazing that this has been totally forgotten in the west. Or, maybe it's not as everything inconvenient or limiting gets forgotten by the empire, doesn't it?

That is a huge betrayal by the U.S. And no doubt it is a quite reasonable inspiration for hard feelings on the part of the Russians.

Blogger Giovanni Dannato November 12, 2016 11:56 AM  

The Russians are opportunists so they would have at least tried to pick off the Baltic states, maybe Belarus, make inroads into caucasus. As it is they have tried to set up outright proxy states like Transdniester.
Foreign policy requires balance though and after Clinton's utter stupidity as sec of state, that was my greatest fear about her winning. A 15 minute briefing on Russian geo-strategy should have let someone with common sense know that the Crimea was non-negotiable. Access to warm water ports have been a centerpiece of Russian policy for centuries. The have screamed about Putin's stubborness when they squandered any good will and leverage with him by their constant meddling. Idiots. Have to pick your battles carefully.

Blogger John Regan November 12, 2016 11:59 AM  

FWIW, my position had been that this, and this alone, was good a sufficient reason to make sure HC did not get into the White House. Unfortunately, the forces behind this mindless antagonism of Russia are still the Washington establishment. I hope Trump can do something about that.

Meanwhile, this is interesting:

https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/?pnref=story

Anonymous Yann November 12, 2016 12:00 PM  

Yeap, I had a couple of debates about that in fb with friends who live not too far from Russia. They were worried about Trump... really, about Trump. It was like "we were already almost at war with Russia", Hillary was talking about war with Russia, Obama was pushing and pushing, Russians themselves were preparing for war in case Hillary won... but they were worried about Trump leading to war!

But the worst is that they are smart people, they're far from being stupid.

It's just nuts. Even intelligent people have lost the minimum common sense.

Blogger SteveK November 12, 2016 12:01 PM  

This Leftist Brit explains. He's an entertaining bloke and wrong about the kind of person Trump is, but he correctly understands that the Left had nothing to offer but hashtags, jokes, insults and shouting. No solid policy arguments that would change the country for the better.

https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/videos/1044777035645189/

Blogger seeingsights November 12, 2016 12:01 PM  

I knew that Hillary's foreign policy was terrible but I did not know until reading the piece above that Hillary had a major advisor who wanted to send American troops into Syria.

O my God.


Blogger Unknown November 12, 2016 12:04 PM  

I've been saying the same thing to the libtards on my social media...

Blogger LeoByron November 12, 2016 12:04 PM  

I've been saying the same thing to the libtards on my social media...

Blogger Billy Ray November 12, 2016 12:05 PM  

Why does Russia not want those two countries, Georgia and Ukraine, to join NATO? SIMPLE

So russia can keep an oil pipeline OUT of Georgia, which would cut russia’s oil profits and make Georgia more independent and less reliant on Russia.

Ukraine sits atop a huge, I MEAN HUGE, newly discovered nat gas field. That gas comes on line, Russia is toast, so Russia is stirring up the conflict in Ukraine to keep the country from developing that resource.

Oh but putey pute is doing what he is doing because he is a peace loving saint, all hail the great puty pute right... even though what he is doing in Ukraine is THE EXACT THING WE ARE DOING IN IRAQ – BLOOD FOR OIL. oh right, you alt –left clowns believe USA war mongering is bad but Russian war mongering is good

Blogger allyn71 November 12, 2016 12:07 PM  

@ Billy Ray

Show us on the doll where Putin touched you

Anonymous Yann November 12, 2016 12:08 PM  

@Giovanni Dannato

But here Trump is doing the right thing: looking for peace, but not giving it too easy. He knows Russia doesn't want a war, so instead of saying that everything is OK, he should make them wait, not giving too many clues, and then sit down with Russia and negotiate, so he gets some returns. This is a businessman way. And probably US should recognize Crimea as Russian, but they shouldn't do it for free. So it seems that Trump is doing it fine.

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/a-short-lived-honeymoon-russia-curbs-its-enthusiasm-for-trump-presidency-56087

Anonymous IncoherentM November 12, 2016 12:10 PM  

I know you're a troll or cuck Billy but nor wanting to war with someone is not equivalent to supporting them.

Blogger Arthur Isaac November 12, 2016 12:18 PM  

OT, on consent. All this talk of consent and how the POTUS needs it points to elitism. The elite and effete governed without our consent for 28 years. Now they insist that Trump get their consent. The very definition of elitism. THEIR consent is a privilege, our consent is a joke to be mocked.

Anonymous Philipp November 12, 2016 12:18 PM  

I agree with your take on the Europeans, Vox. Basically all of my family and friends regard Trump as some evil, evil man.

Except for my Serbian friend. Needless to say she hates Clinton and is supporting Trump.

Blogger Positive Dennis November 12, 2016 12:22 PM  

There are no Russian Troops in East Ukraine. When a military man retires, he is often offered a job in East Ukraine. He is paid by the East Ukrainian government. But he is not a member of the Russian military. Of course Russia subsidizes this government. So this might be called a distinction without a difference.

I remember looking at a pile of passports that Ukraine was using to prove that Russian military men were in east Ukraine. My wife literally laughed out loud. They were not military passports, they were civilian.

Anonymous Discard November 12, 2016 12:25 PM  

Billy Ray: Join the infantry you little twat. You don't need to love Russia to not want war with them.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 12, 2016 12:29 PM  

During the 3rd debate Hillary Rodan Robot Clinton dithered over the idea of the US imposing a "no fly" zone over Syria, no one except Trump picked up on it. Did the Europress even notice it?

"No fly zone" over Iraq, threatening to shoot down what was left of Saddam's air force is one thing, threatening to shoot down Russian air force aircraft over Syria for some ill defined purpose is very, very different. Naturally Clinbots had no clue she'd said it, and no idea that could lead to a major shooting war featuring such events as "sinking of US carrier", etc.

Gulf wars I and II have convinced the ordinary American of the invincibility of US forces. It's an illusion that ain't good.

Blogger VD November 12, 2016 12:36 PM  

ya know its funny... the trump camp started with the long view position of "immigration is all that matters" but eventually through the gross incompetence of the democratic party, even that had to be put altered.. because lets face it... immigration doesn't matter much in a post-nuclear-apocalypse world.

In the end.. the most appealing thing about Trump was that he wasn't interested in going to war with Russia.


Exactly. Trump became more and more appealing, to the point that even a complete skeptic could support him wholeheartedly, simply because Hillary Clinton was genuinely worse than her enemies imagined.

Anonymous Deplorable Genericviews November 12, 2016 12:37 PM  

The Russians are not the Soviet union. Offer them Nato membership and then offer them leadership of it.

Blogger Johnny November 12, 2016 12:43 PM  

@38

Lets not get wishful here. All that is necessary is to look at the extensive hardware the "rebels" in eastern Ukraine had to know there was heavy Russian involvement. On the other side of it there is a big Russian minority in the eastern Ukraine and it has long been a part of Russia. The problem with giving it to them (so to speak because it is not actually ours to give away) is that they could take it as license to take more. Should things get energetic, our worst course of action would be to offer ineffective military resistance to any major Russian invasion.

Syria is a problem that was for the most part produced by our side. The big event is a proxy war between religious factions, Saudi Arabia and allies on our side, with Iran and allies on the other side. To some extent our troops in Syria are operating as mercenaries for the Saudi monarchy.

Anonymous BGKB November 12, 2016 12:50 PM  

#5 "Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own," Trump wrote.

I want to chose to be better armed than am MS-13 wetback banger.

Imagine if Hillary had won, and was under investigation. I'm sure that if she thought she could be jailed and/or lose her ill-gotten gains

She would launch nukes at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. She doesn't fear Comey, her normal power tactics can make investigations go away. WikiLeaks releasing Crooked Eye Clinton having seizures with some 6-10yo Haitian cheese octopussy is what she fears.

Al From Bay Shore given could resulte in my family getting trapped in the "Last Rush Hour".

That's why its better to live outside and commute/telecommute. Having all of those things stored at your bug out location risks someone stealing it when you are not there. Better to live at your BOL and only have to worry about 1 person making it back. Check out Survlivalbog.com as we still have the possibility of a currency collapse given our unfunded liabilities are higher than the yearly GDP of the planet.

yeah, how can we not support russia and everything she does and wants...RUSSIA UBER ALES,,,,

He doesn't force people to bake cakes for gays, but he does know how to kill moslems.

Billy Ray Show us on the doll where Putin touched you You don't want to know where on Soros he David French kissed, for some of Soros' stolen Ukrainian gold.

Anonymous VFM#1819 November 12, 2016 12:52 PM  

The real beauty is that some in the Left have learned they need to mimic what the Tea Party did within the Republican party to bring the DNC in line. We all know what a raging success the Tea Party was. Not a one of those they got elected flipped to the dark side when offered lobbyist money. Not a one.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/305617-seething-liberals-vow-revolution-in-democratic-party

Blogger Billy Ray November 12, 2016 12:53 PM  

I love how you alt left types think

when Hitler annexed German speaking Sudetenland and Austria and Poland and etc etc (for resources) that was bad but when putey pute wants to annex “russian speaking” areas and countries (for resources), well, that’s ok

Blogger Fifty Seven November 12, 2016 12:56 PM  

"Limited military coercion".

That right there. They think war is something you can dabble in on the weekends, like stamp collecting and gardening.

Blogger Jourdan November 12, 2016 1:01 PM  

Russia also has for the past ten years made its intentions in certain regard very clear, only to find that no one in Washington is understanding them, probably due to ideological reasoning.

For example, Russian diplomats consistently tied their annexation of the Crimea with U.S. actions in Kosovo, making it beyond clear that if the U.S. was willing to admit that it was wrong in splitting off that province of Serbia, a discussion on Crimea could be had. Not only was there no discussion on that front, U.S. officials clearly did not understand the issue.

I'm not saying that there would have been a solution; there would not have been. But it was very disturbing to see the U.S. leadership not understand a point an "enemy" was making because it is precisely these sorts of large-scale failures to understand that lead to major wars, i.e. WWI.

Blogger Billy Ray November 12, 2016 1:01 PM  

How many of you alt left types would support Canada invading Mexico to keep Mexican oil off the market and drive up process to benefit Canada? NONE, because it would cause the price of gas to go up and hurt your wallet, but at the same time, you think it is ok for Russia to destabilize Ukraine to keep Ukrainian oil/nat gas off the market and drive up energy prices in Europe..why? oh right, it does NOT affect your purse and puts extra cash in the pocket of your favorite strongman oligarch putey pute.

gotta love how you alt left types flip flop and justify your lack of logical progression

cause remember everything america does is Bad, everything that Russia does is good

Blogger Nick S November 12, 2016 1:01 PM  

She doesn't fear Comey, her normal power tactics can make investigations go away.

Trump is trying to head fake Obama. I hope Obama falls for it and fails to pardon Clinton before he leaves office, but it seems unlikely.

More importantly, I wonder if Trump is going to be able to root out the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates Obama placed or otherwise allowed into the US government.

Anonymous VFMUltra November 12, 2016 1:04 PM  

@VFM#1819

It now appears post election that Trump Republicans have successfully flipped the script and that the Democratic party is chasing trends that Republicans tried 5-10 years ago.
It will be hilarious watching liberals try to define their party's cucks.

It needs it's own term though. Corporate-Liberal...a Corporal?

Blogger Valtandor Nought November 12, 2016 1:04 PM  

People I've spoken to down here have been genuinely surprised when I've opined that Trump is more likely to be isolationist than Clinton would have been. I can only suppose it's because our media - which straight up buys a lot of its international content - has bought into the "Democrats are peace lovers, Republicans are warmongers" narrative. This despite the claims of the candidates and recent history (I don't recall the US being especially peaceful under Bill Clinton for instance).

I was also grimly amused to see a local paper report that residents of every country except Russia would, in the whole, prefer that Americans elect Clinton. Well, even if that is true, and that preference was sincere and informed, so what?

Blogger kurt9 November 12, 2016 1:06 PM  

The Obama and Clinton people really were children playing with weapons. I agree we dodged a serious bullet with the election of Trump. The idiot protesters in my city (Portland, OR) have no idea just how bad it would have been.

Blogger Lovekraft November 12, 2016 1:11 PM  

Enemies of the West will be operating on numerous levels.

There's China who recently argued Trump would betray the world if the U.S. backs out of climate control (shakedown) talks. China. Seriously.

There's the legions of bureaucrats like the IRS who will work behind the scenes to sabotage and delay Trump's work.

Soros's serpent will reach among the underclass and whisper lies and incite violence.

Media is already trying to weasle back into relevance. Just read the NYT (a biased, elitist rag) is NOW committed to objective reporting.

The list goes on. But the alt-right is built for this and has no other option. We must and will continue to synthesize into a dominant, forceful movement.

Anonymous VFM#1819 November 12, 2016 1:16 PM  

The Democratic party has tried for decades to paint Soviet Russia as the pinnacle of government. Should they now be surprised when their attempts at re-painting Russia as the mortal enemy of thier socialist utopia is met with yawns? How many activist Democrats have a shirt or flag with the hammer and sickle on it? Quite a few I'd bet. And they were instrumental in dumbing down the school system to the point most of the young can't distinguish between Rusdia and the Soviet Union. They planted the seeds of thier own failure.

Blogger kurt9 November 12, 2016 1:16 PM  

NATO mobilized 300,000 troops in Eastern Europe for a military exercise on the same day as our election. This mobilization is very reminiscent of the one we had in November 1983 that damn near got us into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Reagan is my favorite president and I supported much of what he did. However, the Reagan people were unnecessarily provocative during the fall of 1983 and that nearly led to a nuclear war.

Blogger Billy Ray November 12, 2016 1:20 PM  

Omg omg omg if WWIII starts Russia will shut off the nat gas pipeline..no, they won’t. NATO will bomb the crap out of it first. AND CUT OFF PUTEY PUTE’S ONE AND ONLY SOURCE OF HARD MONEY. Within a year, the Russian economy will collapse and the war would be over. The west would replace Russian gas with Ukrainian gas and Russia would become a third world hellhole. There is no reason to care what putey pute has to say about how he will do this or that about NATO expansion, he can’t and won’t stop it.

Blogger Billy Ray November 12, 2016 1:23 PM  

However, the Reagan people were unnecessarily provocative during the fall of 1983 and that nearly led to a nuclear war. NO IT DIDN'T stop believing the leftist propaganda.

I was stationed in Germany at the time and our defcon level stayed the same THE WHOLE TIME. if we were inching towards war we would have gone on alert AND WE DIDN'T. as usual, you alt left types believe the leftist proaganda

Blogger BassmanCO November 12, 2016 1:23 PM  

I can't tell if Billy Ray is a troll or just a retard. Maybe he should go back to writing shitty country music and pimping his daughter.

Blogger Lovekraft November 12, 2016 1:23 PM  

Billy Ray is on a tear today. I just want to know, changing the topic somewhat, what he thinks of Hilary's declaration during the second (IIRC) debate about systemic oppression (which is another way of saying whites can only be raciss because of institutional power or something.

So tying this into this thread, if you agree with Hilary, do you see Trump as inherently evil and can do no good no matter what?

Or if you reject Hilary's insane logic, are you willing to accept most if not all of Trump (and his supporters') points of view?

Blogger Mocheirge November 12, 2016 1:24 PM  

Jonathan Pie says that his side lost because they used rhetoric instead of arguments, but he's wrong. Blanket insults and impotent name-calling are merely bad rhetoric. Trying to discuss things will still lose to good rhetoric.

Alt-right, keep your tongues sharp and foes salty!

Blogger Dexter November 12, 2016 1:25 PM  

"Unlike Americans, Europeans take the idea of war with Russia very, very seriously and understand it is something to be absolutely avoided at almost all costs. "

I'm American and I agree! Yet another reason I voted TRUMP.

Blogger Sheila4g November 12, 2016 1:26 PM  

OT: Vox, you are mentioned as "an influential alt-right blogger" by the New Yorker's Andrew Marantz in an article linked by Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent Victorious God Emperor

Blogger Lovekraft November 12, 2016 1:26 PM  

Billy Ray reminded me of this guy Firepower from I think In Mala Fide blog who would regularly try and fire us up with taunts and stupid calls to start shootin' shit up.

We called him Fire Poodle. Careful, Billy, a nickname may be coming soon.

Blogger James Dixon November 12, 2016 1:27 PM  

> Why does Russia not want those two countries to join NATO?

Would we allow China to form a military pact with Canada and Mexico?

> They also understand that a considerable quantity of the natural gas that heats their homes comes from Russia...

Under Trump, we'll probably be producing enough natural gas to give them an alternative source.

> freedom or nat gas freedom or nat gas and euroweenies pick nat gas every time

Freedom doesn't much good to a frozen corpse.

> I love how you alt left types think

I love how you don't think.

Blogger Chris Mallory November 12, 2016 1:29 PM  

Billy Ray wrote:How many of you alt left types would support Canada invading Mexico to keep Mexican oil off the market and drive up process to benefit Canada?

I know I should not feed the troll, but here goes.

If the Canadian armed forces are not violating the sovereign territory of the United States, how is it any business of the US government if Canada or Mexico go to war with each other? Just get the wall built to keep even more Mexicants out of the US and let the Canuks mop the floor with them. It is none of my business, just like how nothing in Ukraine, Syria or Outer Bumfreakistan is any business of the US.

Blogger Lew Rand November 12, 2016 1:32 PM  

Billy Ray: You are the typical bully. You assume the other side won't hit back because there are consequences. But at some point you just stand up and say enough.

You don't think the Trump election and Brexit might not be a signal that people have had it just about enough with the phoney moral crusaders and their bloodlust.

Also 14: I read Gary North as a surrender or doomsayer, not as a cuck. I don't read he WANTS that to happen, just that he's convinced its already happening. (And its way too early to be sure of anything)

Blogger Out of Nod November 12, 2016 1:33 PM  

I'm sure there is one on InfoGalactic

Anonymous VFM#1819 November 12, 2016 1:33 PM  

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that John McCain is Billy Ray's idea of a great political leader.

Billy Ray is a militant cuckservative.

Blogger Chris Mallory November 12, 2016 1:39 PM  

VFM#1819 wrote:Billy Ray is a militant cuckservative.

I usually call them "patriotards", but maybe "patriocuck" should be the new term. They usually want to let Tel Aviv cuck the American people.

Blogger Mocheirge November 12, 2016 1:40 PM  

@Lew Rand
Gary North is definitely more of a doomsayer than a cuck. He was predicting global chaos from the Y2K "bug". I've always found North to be far better at explaining the past than at foretelling the future.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore November 12, 2016 1:40 PM  

@66
"I know I should not feed the troll, but here goes."

It's an irresistible temptation. In order to avoid it, I am doing the unthinkable, violating my ESPN/ ABC boycott and watching the Tide destroy Mississippi State. I would have made an entire season w/out college ball but Billy Ray's foolishness made me fall off the wagon.

Blogger James Dixon November 12, 2016 1:41 PM  

> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/305617-seething-liberals-vow-revolution-in-democratic-party

“Democrats have not done very well in rural America and I don’t understand why that has happened. The broader question is how to have a Democratic Party that can attract those working men and women.”

Do they really want a candidate who can appeal to rural and working class men and women? They have one: Joe Manchin. Whatever else I may have to say about Joe, he's a good politician and he has exactly the background to be able to speak to the people they lost this election. Of course, being such bigoted cosmopolitans, they'll never even consider someone from Appalachia.

Blogger tublecane November 12, 2016 1:43 PM  

Hillary: "Yeah, but Trump got into an argument with Rosie O'Donnell, therefore he's the one that'll get us nuked. Because temperament.

Now, hand me my whiskey, peasant!"

Blogger Arthur Isaac November 12, 2016 1:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger kurt9 November 12, 2016 1:48 PM  

Fred Reed talked about this a month ago. There is no question that a Clinton presidency would have lead to direct military conflict with Russia, by the end of January and that we (NATO) would most certainly have lost. Hillary's first days of presidency would have been a disaster. The question is whether Hillary would have had the presence of mind to somehow de-esclate, or would she have actually ordered a nuclear strike on Russia (She is narcissistic and emotionally unbalanced enough that this was a real possibility). A limited nuclear war with Russia would have been a disaster for both countries and would have most certainly terminated the democratic party as a legitimate party for the next 100 years. We don't even need to discuss what an unlimited nuclear war would be like (although I don't think it would have gone that far). I think Congress and/or a military coup would have removed Hillary from office before it spiraled that far out of control.

Needless to say, the rest of the world would have condemned the U.S. as the agressor in this case, and rightly so.

This silly protesters in my city are so very lucky to have Trump as our president.

Anonymous JustAnotherPairOfEyes November 12, 2016 1:56 PM  

The fact that the Bush / GOPe agreed to not extend NATO eastward is important. A problem with Hillary and Bush is that they are deep liars and so our international relations become a matter of power only. No US promise is sacrosanct. This means that neither our allies nor our enemies can trust our commitments. Examples are when the US told Iraq that it could have peace if it gave up WMDs and Qaddafi could have peace if agreed to stop terror and paid reparations for Lockerbie (IIRC).

The happiness I feel today reminds of the moment when the USSR finally fell apart and the threat of nuclear war was finally lifted. And back then, my recollection is that it seemed that I was the only person I knew (in academia) who was partying. The vast majority of the population never had the slightest idea how close they'd come or that the terror had been lifted.

Of course Billy Rays' comparison to Canada / Mexico relations doesn't compute because neither Canada nor Mexico is even a local power. Instead, they are weak nations that are fortunate to fall under the protective umbrella of having good relations with the US and falling under the immediate sphere of US influence. Well, maybe except for that thing about Jenkin's ear and a couple of other minor disputes. The fact is that there is no way the US would allow Russia or China to go into military alliance with Canada or Mexico any more than China would allow the US to join (North or both) Vietnam in a military alliance and therefore begin stationing US troops along the Vietnam/China border.

Anonymous Godfrey November 12, 2016 1:59 PM  

Somehow... not sure how... this all seems racist?

Anonymous Racist November 12, 2016 2:01 PM  

Godfrey, hell yeah, ma' racist.

Blogger pyrrhus November 12, 2016 2:02 PM  

One comment on natural gas: LNG is expensive and extremely vulnerable to disruption. It cannot compete with pipeline gas, Russia's or anyone else's.

Anonymous Godfrey November 12, 2016 2:03 PM  

Or is it homophobic? Sexist?...

Well now I'm out of ammo.

That's all I got.



Blogger pyrrhus November 12, 2016 2:04 PM  

"There's China who recently argued Trump would betray the world if the U.S. backs out of climate control (shakedown) talks. China. Seriously."

No, LOL, not seriously at all. China would no doubt be happy if we wrecked our economy pandering to the global warming idiots, but they are certainly not going to do so.

Blogger The Other Robot November 12, 2016 2:06 PM  

@81: You forgot racist & dipshit.

Blogger Lovekraft November 12, 2016 2:06 PM  

@82: I think we agree with each other. Trump will meet many enemies moving forward, China being one of them.

Blogger Lovekraft November 12, 2016 2:09 PM  

@77: Here in Ontario, there are entire blocks with Chinese lettering in broad display. Or Vancouver. There are enclaves everywhere, especially in the Universities.

China may not be militarily present but, trust me, their economic infiltration means politicians have to be careful to not offend them. And continue to spread they do.

Blogger modsquad November 12, 2016 2:10 PM  

@57. Billy Ray November 12, 2016 1:20 PM

Omg omg omg if WWIII starts Russia will shut off the nat gas pipeline..no, they won’t. NATO will bomb the crap out of it first. AND CUT OFF PUTEY PUTE’S ONE AND ONLY SOURCE OF HARD MONEY.

Heh. Heh, heh... he said "hard money." All money is a whisper of other things, none of it's hard (heh).

Blogger tublecane November 12, 2016 2:11 PM  

@81-Everything is racist/sexist/whatever when you step out of the Mind Prison of mainstream culture. Perhaps we can come up with shorthand to spare you your confused posts. Just say "Eww," or something.

Anonymous BGKB November 12, 2016 2:12 PM  

would support Canada invading Mexico to keep Mexican oil off the market and drive up process to benefit Canada? NONE

If the Canadian offered to kill everyone west of I-5 you would find a lot of takers.

if Trump is going to be able to root out the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates Obama placed or otherwise allowed into the US government.

He is looking for 4,000 people to take Obama appointee jobs, so he might get some of them

Blogger Reno Chris November 12, 2016 2:13 PM  

Vox - You correctly point out the European citizen's view on expanding NATO, but what about Trump's insistence that many European countries are freeloading in NATO and not paying their fair share? He has consistently made a point of saying this is something the Trump administration will make a priority and it makes perfect sense. NATO is mostly an organization that is for the protection of Europe, and when you consider both direct and "indirect" costs, the citizens of the USA pay for the lion's share of the military cost burden of protecting Europe. Even Obama has said that some of our European allies are "free riders". I expect that many European leaders will squeal very loudly and their media and citizens cry and complain when Trump applies his hard earned negotiation skills to pressure them to pay their fair share. The cost of defending Europe should rightfully be upon Europe - our cost should be no more than 10 percent. Most Europeans (nationalist or not) are serious socialists and want essentially all government money spent on handouts and freebies - which is why the current governments have tiny military organizations (in proportion to their populations). I like Trump myself, but once your European friends hear he wants them to spend a lot more money on their own defense, I think they will go back to demonizing him.

Blogger James Dixon November 12, 2016 2:16 PM  

> One comment on natural gas: LNG is expensive and extremely vulnerable to disruption. It cannot compete with pipeline gas, Russia's or anyone else's.

It can if the pipeline gas isn't available.

Blogger Franz Lionheart November 12, 2016 2:17 PM  

And that is why Donald Trump has been one of the most effective Presidents in U.S. history, even before he has taken office.

Fully agreed, and very astute observation, Sir Vox.

So maybe the fken Nobel committee also bestows the peace price onto him, before he even did anything; there's daft historical precedent. Fat chance.

Anonymous Godfrey November 12, 2016 2:21 PM  

Oh "great" argument Vox. So Trump possibly saved us from a worldwide nuclear holocaust... big deal! What about the 60 year-old transvestite that wants to go potty with little girls? Huh Vox? What about him? That's way more important than nuclear war!

Sexist!

Homophobe!

Racist!

I bet the Russians run this site.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable November 12, 2016 2:34 PM  

@ Yann: It's just nuts. Even intelligent people have lost the minimum common sense.

The human brain is a rationalization engine, not a rational one. Smarter people have stronger Rationalization Hamsters. So the question is, which huckster(s) did they make the mistake of trusting?

Ask them that question now, and they will be primed to notice when Trump has great and peaceful foreign policy, and to realize that they've been listening to self-interested liars and fools.

Blogger BunE22 November 12, 2016 2:40 PM  

VFM#1819 wrote:
How many activist Democrats have a shirt or flag with the hammer and sickle on it? Quite a few I'd bet.

During the anti-Trump protests of the summer, where Trump supporters were being attacked, there were protesters with hammer and sickle flags. As well as Mexican and ISIS flags.

I've never seen these on the Republican side, only the shit-for-brains Democrat side.

Blogger tublecane November 12, 2016 2:44 PM  

@52-That's odd, considering Trump was explicitly called an "isolationist" repeatedly, and not just by neocons, who consider their most damning insult.

Maybe the left thinks it just means "Nazi sympathizer." Since "we all know" the Nazis were out to conquer the globe, to them "isolationist" means warmonger?

Or maybe it's the usual cognitive dissonance. "Trump refuses to invade Russia in the name of gay rights! He must be stopped!...[thirty seconds later] Trump will get us into war! He must be stopped!"

Blogger Balázs Varga November 12, 2016 2:50 PM  

Godfrey wrote:Oh "great" argument Vox. So Trump possibly saved us from a worldwide nuclear holocaust... big deal! What about the 60 year-old transvestite that wants to go potty with little girls? Huh Vox? What about him? That's way more important than nuclear war!

Sexist!

Homophobe!

Racist!

I bet the Russians run this site.


Any liberal would have written "What about her?" and not him. Great bait there mate, but you did not do your research.

As for the gas, yeah sure bomb it and your allies all freeze to death, great idea there.

A nuclear war does not leave winners. It leaves only ruins.

Anonymous Bz November 12, 2016 2:55 PM  

Heh, Billy Ray needs to join the First Victorious Expeditionary Force led by Brigadier Hillary Clinton and mustering some of the meanest, most skilled SJWs, homosexuals and women that can be found, not just in the USA but the entire WORLD! They will liberate like a lot of what Russia now oppresses and Trump will get none of the glory. Go with God, Billy Ray.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 12, 2016 3:11 PM  

Re: pyrrhus' OT on guns, I sincerely hope that with Trump & republican congressional majorities the stupidity of putting silencers in NFA 1934 can finally be reversed. Going deaf shouldn't be a part of exercising 2nd Amendment rights, and simply putting a muffler on a gun shouldn't involve legal obstacles.

Anonymous Oye November 12, 2016 3:17 PM  

"I strongly suspect that the troop movements that were taking place on both sides, which combined consisted of nearly one million troops, indicate that if Hillary Clinton had been elected President, Putin would have ordered the invasion and occupation of Ukraine before January."

It's retrospective now (and therefore useless), but I would have disagreed with your forecast on the immediacy of that. The status quo in Ukraine was and still is highly preferable as opposed to an all out war. Putin wasn't going to escalate and guarantee Russia's trajectory into a quagmire; he wasn't going to trade a Ukraine in limbo (preferable) for a concrete and depleting occupation or all out war (highly unpreferable). A Hillary win would not have been enough for a decision to war on behalf of the Russians. It would have been too brash and costly of a move. Maxing out, delaying and buying time for the status quo, until a more concrete and clear picture of Clinton's "policy" towards Russia emerged would have been their strategy. Only until an imminent and concretely adverse event emerged would the Russians have invaded. The Russian leadership has demonstrated itself adept at calculating and being cautious when making plays. An outright invasion would have been a fool's errand - something that I haven't been reading from Russian leadership and top brass. They are patient. They are cautious.

Russians know clear well who she is and what she's about. The considerations and the machinery that kept Barry from provoking Putin wouldn't have been mute or inconsequential to a Hillary presidency. Putin would have gambled and done a 'wait and see" to see if she would carry Barry's policy forward.

From Russia's perspective, drum-beating isn't a real war. Perhaps they would have been surprisingly amused at the words of a terminally sick woman.

One last thing, retrospectively, you wasted a lot of words on Hillary Clinton after you found out she had Parkinson's. In that case you knew it was Kaine that was slyly being run by the establishment. I was just waiting for you to state that for a long time. It would have been Tim Kaine vs. Putin.

My 2¢.

Blogger Positive Dennis November 12, 2016 3:23 PM  

Miley's father really has not thought things through. The first target in a war by Russia would be the Saudi oil fields. The loss of the 10 million barrels Russia produces with Saudi's ten million would do wierd things to the price of oil. There may be gas in Ukraine, but since the people devolping it have walked away it will be years before it produces anything. Western Europe losing 40 to 90% of its gas would destroy these countries before Russia would be destroyed.

Anonymous Alan November 12, 2016 3:25 PM  

It struck me as I was reading this article that the irony of the left/media complex promoting Trump as the preferred winner of the Republican primaries is mirrored in the result of ISIS/ISIL/Al Qaeda being the result of the Uniparty/Neocon arming of Islamic militants to defeat the USSR and Bashad.

God certainly has an ironic sense of humor in unleashing judgements on his creation.

Blogger JWM in SD November 12, 2016 3:28 PM  

"Omg omg omg if WWIII starts Russia will shut off the nat gas pipeline..no, they won’t. NATO will bomb the crap out of it first. AND CUT OFF PUTEY PUTE’S ONE AND ONLY SOURCE OF HARD MONEY. Within a year, the Russian economy will collapse and the war would be over. The west would replace Russian gas with Ukrainian gas and Russia would become a third world hellhole. There is no reason to care what putey pute has to say about how he will do this or that about NATO expansion, he can’t and won’t stop it."

Yeah...because they don't nuclear submarines or anything like that right Billy?

Billy...what exactly did you do in the military because I can't imagine you did anything of importance if you can't figure this out.

Anonymous Daniel H November 12, 2016 3:34 PM  

@16
>>And at the least we should have delayed expanding NATO eastward. The right thing to do was to give the Russians time to work things out and see what develops.

NO, we should never extend NATO at all, ever. There is and was no good reason to extend Nato into the former Warsaw Pact countries unless you really wanted to start a conflict with Russia, which could end the American nation as we know it. Russia has no desire to conquer her formerly affiliated states, she just doesn't want us arming them and using them as proxies for our own designs. I could see a Hillary administration declaring an economic embargo on Russia for throwing Pussy Riot in jail.

Blogger Franz Lionheart November 12, 2016 3:44 PM  

when Hitler annexed German speaking Sudetenland and Austria, that was bad but

No, it wasn't. Who said it was bad? Free determination of free people.

Btw it's not "annexed" Austria. Reuinited Austria with Germany. Long before Hitler, Austria had decided to (re) join with Germany. It was denied them by the same powers who are now war mongering versus Russia. When Hitler, many years later, did the same, they caved in and agreed. They could have had that result earlier under a "democratic" German regime but considered it a weakness .....

Vox, I know, I know ...... I'm sorry for feeding the trol.

Blogger Nobody In Particular November 12, 2016 3:52 PM  

Neither Trump nor Putin strikes me as crazy or delusional, so I hope they'll be able (after some posturing, perhaps) to arrive at a reasonable understanding. Trump and the US are still in a strong position, while Putin is in a weak position, so hopefully Trump is aware of this and won't give up too much. On the other hand, there are other threats (and Trump probably has a better opinion of Putin than I have), so Trump may want to reach an understanding anyway in order to be able to focus on those.
Ukraine and Georgia as neutral, but pro-Western countries (like Finland and Austria during the Cold War) and Belarus as a neutral, but pro-Russian country (like Yugoslavia during the Cold War) would seem a good compromise to me.
Both Trump's and Clinton's campaigns were based on emotional appeals. Though Clinton was sold as the elder stateswoman and let others peddle the emotion for her, there were some moments when the mask slipped and one could see her emotions weren't at all under control. Conversely, although the press tried their best to depict Trump as emotional and unstable, he was much more calculated and had much greater control over his emotions than a normal person would have. I'm not saying that he was emotionless, but that he could make his emotions work for him, rather than the other way around.
Thus, if a war becomes necessary, I still think it's better to have Trump in control. He is more likely to reach in an appropriate (which doesn't always mean "rational") manner to provocations and do what needs to be done.
The Republican reaction to 9/11 makes me not trust them completely, but hopefully a new generation of leaders has learned that lesson. Also, Trump is not a typical Republican, which is a point in his favor.

Anonymous DenEkteNorsk November 12, 2016 3:54 PM  

Soon they will have a potential alternative. The EU reclassified Canadian tar sands oil a while back. Turns out they would rather heat their homes than save the planet.

Applications for terminals to export natural gas are turning up on Canada's east coast too. That would be one of the shortest shipping routes assuming pipelines are in place to the terminals.

Expect more sabre rattling in a few years.

Blogger kh123 November 12, 2016 3:59 PM  

@24 "Gorbachev asked Bush and Baker for assurances that, if the Russians allowed the integration of East and West Germany, that the U.S. wouldn't try to expand NATO closer to Russia.

It's absolutely amazing that this has been totally forgotten in the west. Or, maybe it's not as everything inconvenient or limiting gets forgotten by the empire, doesn't it?

That is a huge betrayal by the U.S. And no doubt it is a quite reasonable inspiration for hard feelings on the part of the Russians."


Russia, like any nation interested in its own self-interest, has a long memory. Listening recently to some of Putin's Q&A's for the past few weeks makes this very clear. Whereas the U.S. political class by and large can't pull its head out of the manufactured helotry's ass long enough to realize that islands don't capsize.

And why should they, when up til now the public's grasp of voting responsibilities - and consequences - goes about as far as Vote For Pedro.

Blogger Nobody In Particular November 12, 2016 4:33 PM  

Winning or losing wars has consequences. The Russians may wish to pretend that they didn't lose the Cold War or that it's unfair that they lost, but they certainly got a much better treatment than the West would have received had the Soviet Union won.
In my view, the West has learned the lesson of Versailles and didn't impose any unnecessary humiliation on Russia. There were no exorbitant war reparations, for example. There was no peace treaty that asked Russia to formally accept the responsibility for the war. There were no Western troops stationed on Russian territory. Etc..
The West only tried to make sure that a revival of Communism and of the Soviet Union would be impossible. Sometimes people forget that the Communist Party is still a significant force in Russia and was even more significant 10-15 years ago, when NATO expanded.
Now, maybe Russians don't see it this way, they see their defeat as profoundly humiliating and unfair, and are eager to again be all that they were and more. Who knows where this may lead?

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 12, 2016 4:43 PM  

Besides really jonesin' for a seat on the Lolita Express next to fellow cuck David French on the next trip to (((Epstein))) Island, it would appear that this is what upsets Billy Ray so terribly about Boss Poootin. It's a Churchian thing you see, because like (((Epstein))), (((Soros))) is somehow equated in Billy Ray's bird-brain with Jeezus. Massah (((Soros))) ain't gettin' his fake money's worth from your trolling here, Billy Ray.

Blogger tycho November 12, 2016 5:00 PM  

#51, Democuck works for me!

Blogger Desillusionerad November 12, 2016 5:06 PM  

Reno Chris wrote:Vox - You correctly point out the European citizen's view on expanding NATO, but what about Trump's insistence that many European countries are freeloading in NATO and not paying their fair share?
The problem here is of course that the US actively does not want Europe to pay for itself.
The EU has an economy roughly the same size as the US, and could trivially pay for their own defense.
The problem is just that if the 'EU' had a defense budget of that magnitude, they would make more of their own shit. take for example the Meteor missile, a project the US tried to end so badly it offered to partner with the UK to develop and produce the Amram missile - That only fell because the UK and the 'EU' would then not be able to sell their Eurofighter (as it would not have an Air-Air missile that wasn't covered by US export controls) - Which after all was most of the point of killing meteor anyway.
The US Likes being the worlds sole superpower with nearly complete control over cutting edge military technology - If the 'EU' spent 2-3% of its GDP - Wisely - on their military expenses, that would no longer be true.
That's why the US is rather keen on not actually forcing the 'EU' to pay for itself, but sticking to hand wringing and whining.
although i suppose one could hope for trump to fuck the US MIC over and produce more shit in conjunction with Europe.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 12, 2016 5:34 PM  

The world dodged a bullet Tuesday.

When you study history, there are those "for want of a nail" moments, when one little thing -- a letter not getting through, a ship sinking, one man dying -- changed the course of history drastically.

In this case, I guess you'd call it "for want of a decent email password."

Blogger Mark November 12, 2016 5:36 PM  

And now I hear a drumbeat to appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State....might as well have elected Hillary or appoint Bebe to the position.

Blogger Were-Puppy November 12, 2016 5:42 PM  

@32 Billy Ray

a free range chicken hawk has wandered amonst us

Blogger Cail Corishev November 12, 2016 5:50 PM  

Lemme check my globe.... Russia, Ukraine, Europe, Syria..... yep, all on the other side of the world, so Not Our Business. Back to planning the Wall.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 12, 2016 5:53 PM  

This topic - avoiding war with Russia - is actually something I've gotten traction with leftards about. They get pissy at someone saying something nice about Trump, then glumly admit "yeah, you're probably right about that."

Asking the obvious follow-up question - "so, why didn't you consider that before the election?" doesn't meet with as much tolerance from them. They don't like having someone point out they were willing to get millions of us killed in order to virtue-signal to their friends.

Blogger Were-Puppy November 12, 2016 5:54 PM  

@51 VFMUltra
It needs it's own term though. Corporate-Liberal...a Corporal?
----

Hmmm- Corporatist Socialists - where have i heard that before?

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable November 12, 2016 5:58 PM  

VFMUltra wrote:It will be hilarious watching liberals try to define their party's cucks.

It needs it's own term though. Corporate-Liberal...a Corporal?


Kayfabers.


There are already terms, because it turns out that left-libertarianism is an impossible illusion, due to leftism being inherently authoritarian.

So the L-Ls (of which I was one for a time) are very against authoritarian crony corporatism. But when we get red-pilled, what we see is a kayfabe with a false and even worse alternative of authoritarian crony socialism.

So use both terms, and use them both interchangeably because they're just two factions of the Uniparty.

But mostly call the left version of cucks "kayfabers", because that is actually what they are, pig-latin be-fakers pretending to care about the working class when they're really playing both ends against the middle.

And it would be a brilliant irony to get them labeled with a working-class term. They would hate it, which just makes me love it even more, because I hate them.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 12, 2016 6:13 PM  

Within a year, the Russian economy will collapse and the war would be over.

Billy Ray, the reincarnated ghost of Norman Angell

for those who don't want to click the link (and frankly, the entry needs a little work, it is missing some important points), Angell wrote a book titled The Great Illusion in 1909. In it, he argued that war between the great powers of Europe was futile because the interdependence of their economies would bankrupt a nation within weeks or months at best, forcing everybody to the peace table. He didn't claim a general war couldn't happen, but he did claim that if it did, it couldn't last very long because of the economic disaster it would cause.

Of course, in 1914 general war not only broke out, but it lasted long, long after all the major powers were bankrupt.

Angell was one of those fools beguiled so much by economics that he thought money was a thing and not just a yard stick. He was correct that war would bankrupt the nations of Europe, but didn't understand that money is just an artifact of civilization, and not terribly relevant when nations are engaged in slaughtering one another.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable November 12, 2016 6:35 PM  

Billy Ray wrote:There is no reason to care what putey pute has to say about how he will do this or that about NATO expansion, he can’t and won’t stop it.

Thank G-d he doesn't have nuclear weapons, because if he did, well, just imagine if Trump did. Scary, right? Thank goodness they both like and/or hate each other and are impotent and/or omnipotent.

Do you ever get tired of sounding retarded?

Blogger IreneAthena November 12, 2016 7:23 PM  

= X - proximity.
Grateful.
How could X work at home?

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 12, 2016 7:53 PM  

@121
What's your point?

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents November 12, 2016 7:54 PM  

@119 Jack Amok
Angell wrote a book titled The Great Illusion in 1909.

Which goes well with the 1930's movie The Grand Illusion. Too well.

Blogger Reno Chris November 12, 2016 7:55 PM  

The problem here is of course that the US actively does not want Europe to pay for itself.

That may well have been true in the past, but your comment is based on an assumption that Trump is just like every other Washington establishment republican/democrat insider we've had in the last 75 years - and he is NOT. No candidate would dare say the stuff Trump has said and he made NATO costs a major point in his platform. Trump has said the same for other areas of the world where the US actively plays the world policeman for free. I think it safe to say that he will not be letting the EU technocrats off easy. Currently counting direct and indirect costs, the US pays 73% of the NATO bill. Currently NATO countries average paying just 1.18% of their GDP toward defense. The NATO treaty itself requires a minimum of 2%, so many NATO members are in violation of the NATO treaty. The US spends nearly 4% of its GDP on defense, triple what the other NATO members average.
I don't think you will find Trump tows the historical establishment line on the US paying the great majority of the NATO cost.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable November 12, 2016 7:55 PM  

IreneAthena, if I understand your cryptogram, just be racist. Treat each accordingly to xer kind.

If you need details about what to expect and how to deal with it, you can always post Name/URL with URL blank. You can expect honesty.

Blogger Lazarus November 12, 2016 8:22 PM  

Mark wrote:And now I hear a drumbeat to appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State....might as well have elected Hillary or appoint Bebe to the position.

G.E. Trump (PBUH) is Pro-Israel. Get used to it. He mentioned he would move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. This would be a Big FY to muslims. Hillary would never even hint at that.

Recent headline at Arutz Sheva:

Trump warns Obama: Don't force solution on Israel

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents November 12, 2016 9:08 PM  

Next DNCe chair could be skittle Keith Ellison that would be quite appropriate in so many ways.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 12, 2016 9:28 PM  

A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents wrote:Next DNCe chair could be skittle Keith Ellison that would be quite appropriate in so many ways.
Black and Moslem, an intersectional dream! If he wanted to ensure it, he would start wearing a dress.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 12, 2016 10:00 PM  

Which goes well with the 1930's movie The Grand Illusion. Too well.

Supposedly Renoir was partly inspired by the book.

Blogger IreneAthena November 12, 2016 11:14 PM  

@122 & @125
@121 refers to a comment on another thread.
No, X is not racism. It acknowledges differences, diplomatically.

Blogger Ken Prescott November 12, 2016 11:14 PM  

@58

"However, the Reagan people were unnecessarily provocative during the fall of 1983 and that nearly led to a nuclear war. NO IT DIDN'T stop believing the leftist propaganda.

"I was stationed in Germany at the time and our defcon level stayed the same THE WHOLE TIME. if we were inching towards war we would have gone on alert AND WE DIDN'T. as usual, you alt left types believe the leftist proaganda"

VRYAN was real. Able Archer was real.

And the kicker...our DEFCON stayed the same, true.

Their's didn't. They went on war alert. And we didn't notice that they were taking emergency measures for . And we would never have known about it if Oleg Gordievskiy hadn't told us about it well after the fact.

We could have blundered into a war and not known until their missiles were on the way.

THAT is why you do not screw around with the Russians like this--we don't know how they'd view our actions, and we would probably miss that they were getting ready to do something drastic.

Anonymous TheBoom November 12, 2016 11:28 PM  

It isn't just the European press that championed the globalist strategy of all bad Trump and nothing bad about Hillary. I live in Asia and all the press I've encountered over here is the same, especially here in Taiwan. I find most Asians are easy to turn. They are nationalistic, believe in strong borders and have shame-based not guilt-based cultures. there is no such thing as Chinese/Japanese/Thai/etc. guilt. I found that I could relate Trump's opinions to their own and they would start to see that he isn't the crazy he is portrayed as being over here. Then I show them wikileaks and alt-right sites to show them how the mainstream media distorts reality and turns it into an alternative reality. They get that pretty easily because they see the same thing happening in their own countries. Lately I've been bringing up Hillary's plans to circle China with bases and to start getting aggressive with them. They are shocked because they think her plan is nuts.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl November 13, 2016 12:08 AM  

I second (er, 120th?) this.

Trump's win was a strategic victory in many senses and did prevent a major and catastrophic war that would basically have destroyed and bankrupted the US.

Also keep in mind that the Trump win MAY stop Hillary and Crew's planned importation of 500,000 Muzzie mercs. (Congress and some states may still do this, however.)

And Billy Ray? Yikes. Talk about intentional ignorance or direct malfeasance. Perhaps low verbal-cognitive ability.

Okay Billy Ray, here's a quick lesson in equivocation:

I like chocolate ice cream.

That does not mean I hate vanilla ice cream.

I know it's hard, but one can be anti-war and neutral on Putin. Not wanting a war that, at the least, conventionally would be a disaster does not mean...

Eh, whatever. It's no use. Maybe you should get back to your peaceful burning of racist window factories or something.

Blogger Thucydides November 13, 2016 12:35 AM  

I'm going to step in and disagree about the "cause and effect", although I do agree the end result was and could still be a conflict with Russia.

The growth of both NATO and the EU in eastern Europe, and the potential memberships of Georgia and Ukraine were driven by the desire of the peoples of these nations to escape Russia's political, military and economic orbit. IF you believe in Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" theory, these nations are part of the Christian West escaping from the Slavic and Orthodox civilization of Russia. This becomes very clear when you look at Georgia and Ukraine; the regions of Donbass and South Ossetia are generally Slavic, while the remainder of Georgia and Western Ukraine on the other side of the Deniper River are generally Christian.

Russia is not so much being surrounded as being abandoned. This is frightening to the Russians, since they have Christendom on their Western border, the Islamic civilizations to the south and the Sinic civilization to to east, so in a sense, they are surrounded.

This is also at odds with their national mythology. Moscow is the "Third Rome", and Russia's unique role in the world is to unite the East and the West. When the "West" is rejecting you, and the East is becoming ever more powerful and threatening rather than both sides accepting your leadership, it is pretty clear what Putin was getting at when he denounced the collapse of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century".

So Clinton losing is dodging a literal bullet, but the underlying issues are not so much American machinations, but rather the ham handed way the globalists have attempted to manipulate an already ongoing breakup to their advantage. In the long run, Christendom was going to become a thing (the 450 million members of the EU have a massive trading block which far more attractive to fellow Christians in Western Ukraine than the much smaller Russian economic union that Viktor Yanukovych signed on to (Russia's GDP is about the same as Italy's)).

President Trump, as a seasoned negotiator who views negotiation as a positive sum game, can certainly find ways to allow European Christendom to escape the orbit of Slavic Orthodox Russia without either side feeling they have lost anything.

Blogger Nobody In Particular November 13, 2016 1:42 AM  

I'd say the European part of Russia is as much a part of Europe as any other country. Their non-European part is also connected to European culture, exactly in the same manner as the US are (through colonization). Russia has made major contributions to European and even US culture. I'll just cite three names: Mendeleev; Rachmaninoff; Tolstoi (and there are many more).
Moreover, for many centuries Russia has actively sought to be part of Europe (and sometimes to rule over it, but it's not the only European country to have tried).
European culture simply wouldn't be the same without Russia. Russia's contribution to European culture dwarfs that of several other European countries I can think of.
Unfortunately, as history has repeatedly shown, these are not sufficient reasons to prevent a bloody war. Germany and England had much more in common before WWI, for example. France and Austria also had much in common and they fought for two centuries.
Hopefully this time things will be different. However, I wouldn't count on Trump's leadership qualities to prevent a war all by themselves. Though, historically, being ruled by a woman was seen as a weakness to be exploited by rivals (like Frederic the Great and Maria Theresa or Philip II and Elisabeth I), being ruled by a man was generally not enough to avoid war.
I also don't see Putin and Trump settling this by a duel.
One difference is that this time both sides have nuclear weapons. Hopefully this will be enough to result in a cold war, not a hot one.

Blogger wreckage November 13, 2016 1:44 AM  

@133 The erosion of the EU offers a golden opportunity to do exactly that. It was a trade bloc that excluded Russia. Better for the region to have Russia trade-integrated with Europe in multiple, smaller, above all, mutually beneficial ways at the level of individual States.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 13, 2016 2:29 AM  

@Thucydides
South Ossetia is not in any way Slavic. The Ossetian people are descended from the Alans, an Indo-Aryan Western Asian race, that conquered Scythia in Roman times and in the 4th and 5th centuries ruled kingdoms as far away as Spain. Even after they were conquered by the Vandals, they remained a very powerful group.
The Ossetians are the Alanic people that remained behind when the Huns and other Central Asians invaded Europe.
South Osetians live on the south side of a mountains that forms the Georgo-Russian border. North Ossetians live on the North side of the same mountains.
Ethnically, the Ossetians are properly described as Sarmatian or Iranian, not Slavic.

As tempting as it is to view the divide between Russia and the US as a Western Christianity vs Eastern Christianity dispute, the facts do not fit the case. Certainly, the Cold War could not be described that way. And in the current circumstance, I'm not sure that Western Christianity is a sequence of words with any particular meaning. When Unitarians, JWs, Mormons, Episcopalians and Catholics are put in the same bag, I don't think that label will describe the contents.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz November 13, 2016 2:34 AM  

No. The Ukrainian gas fields are Lugansk and Donetzk. Plus Ukrainian Charkov is the main producer of Russian tanks. Plus 80% of factories ovned by Poroshchenko (the Ukrainian President) is in Russia…
Need a drink?

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz November 13, 2016 2:40 AM  

… not. I live in Poland, a commie state in that time. And everything than was better than the Russkies. Even the WWIII.
My only regret is that after the change of regime in 1989 in Poland your country turned not to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave".

Blogger Stephen Davenport November 13, 2016 2:41 AM  

What worries me about the alt-right is their Putin Fanboy bullshit. The Ukraine and Georgia are VICTIMS not the aggressors like Vox wants you to believe. He is part of the we do not want to piss off the Russian bear fear crowd. Russia aggressively goes after its neighbors and according to Vox we are supposed to slap Putin on the back and say great job, they started it..lol..Vox it's your lamest argument dude, nobody buys it nor has it for the past 30 years. Russia is weak and always has been.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz November 13, 2016 2:43 AM  

IMHO the Left always aimed at a conventional war. A war big enought to lose and call the collapse of the USA banking system.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz November 13, 2016 2:48 AM  

Sorry, but no. Using $ as a backup currency de facto tax Europe. Tax for Fed, not for the US Treasury. It is just and proper for UST to pay FEDs bills, don't you think?

Blogger wreckage November 13, 2016 2:54 AM  

@139 there's a thousand miles of difference between seeing what the strategic situation is, and approving of Russia. It all games down the same way, wether you like Russia or not: they have to respond to encroachment of their near abroad, they have told us they will, and we know for a fact they believe that they must or be snuffed out.

Ergo, we must be prepared to react swiftly and violently to their expansion, but we must not push the issue back the other way unless starting a war with Russia is the goal.

We certainly CANNOT plausibly negotiate regarding Russian aggression when the PRESIDENT has said she wants to start a war over EMAILS on the one hand, or in defense of ISIS on the other!

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 13, 2016 2:56 AM  

The Ukraine and Georgia are VICTIMS not the aggressors.
Victims of whom is the question. Given that the current situation was engineered by the US State Dept and George Soros, it's mighty hard to ascribe that as Russia's evil nature.

Russia is weak and always has been.
That's exactly what Hitler thought. And Napoleon before him.

Blogger Shimshon November 13, 2016 3:24 AM  

The war argument strikes me as the litmus test par excellence to apply to Trump opponents of the left and right. It is so edifying. I've been pushing it for months, because it so neatly distills the issue. The old Bushitler crowd, with all their anti-war posturing and preening from the Bush days, explode. It's okay to incinerate their precious illegals, so long as they aren't deported before the fun begins. One guy literally called it (because it came forth from my typing) "right wing garbage" right before unfriending me. I don't care.

For others on the right, who express a more, say, pragmatic (or "nuanced") view of the race and prefer Hillary (because anarcho-capitalist purity of arms), seem to forget that anti-war MUST precede anti-state in order of priority to make any logical sense.

The vast majority them are simply ineducable and often not even subject to rhetorical persuasion (the anti-war argument incorporates both, which makes it so effective). I had one woman in such a FB exchange who responded dialecticly to such an argument. That comforted me. I directed her to this here blog. I hope she joins the fun.

Blogger wreckage November 13, 2016 5:34 AM  

Russia is weak? Sure. Italy is too. Do you think the conquest of Italy would be accomplished with relative ease?

Now consider this: Russia has 1,790 strategic nuclear warheads. It has, to pick a model, 55 R-36 MIRV ICBMs yielding in the 5Mt range. Compared to the Hiroshima bomb, that's up one order of magnitude, then tripled.

So, how would you like 30 times the Hiroshima bomb heading your way? Not great, but how about 55 of those suckers? Of just that class missile? Just that we know of? And remember they are all 10-vehicle MIRV, so you have to stop 550 warheads.

Nobody has ever proved conclusively that they could stop one ICBM warhead reliably. How exactly the fuck much do you want to wager on stopping 550 of them? Oh, and 40 dummies to every 10 actual warheads.

Yeah, Russia is weak, for a first and second strike capable nuclear power whose only rival in strategic destruction is the USA. Everyone else on earth put together can't out-shoot them in a full-scale war of annihilation.

Grow a fucking brain.

Blogger wreckage November 13, 2016 5:37 AM  

Sorry, no, it's 333 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb, not 30.

Blogger Kiev Communard November 13, 2016 5:54 AM  

I am sorry, guys, but 99 per cent of you seem to view both Russia's and East Europe's (including Ukraine's) situation manifestly wrong. While I agree with you that Clinton would have most likely plunged the region (and perhaps the world) in some serious conflict, it is not as if the U.S. under Trump were going to do what Gorbachev did in 1989-1990.

By the way, here is an interesting article (actually, an interview) from one of Russia's right-wing political scholars whp used to be pretty much close to pro-Putin establishment. As you can see, it contains rather unorthodox assessments of the situation.

Of course, it is in Russian, so Google translate or learn the language:

https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/328380

Blogger Shimshon November 13, 2016 7:07 AM  

@147 We don't care. Putin could be a megalomaniac mass murderer on the scale of Stalin (for the record, he's not, and far from it). We don't want the West to saber rattle against him, let alone wage a hot ("kinetic" is the new word, I understand) war, period. Troll.

Blogger wreckage November 13, 2016 7:30 AM  

@147. Russia can sterilize a fair proportion of he earth's surface. Russia will go to war if the US moves into Ukraine. NATO doctrine states that we must use tactical nukes or lose a ground war against Russia, and Russia knows it. Russian doctrine is to respond to WMD attacks with WMD attacks.

So, what are you advocating? That NATO starts a war it may be physically impossible to win? Or that we deploy nukes first and have the Russians launch 550 10-vehicle MIRVs yielding 333 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb?

Perhaps we'll be lucky, NATO won't shoot first, and we just have to pray no Russian sub misunderstands the situation and launches second-strike missiles at every major city on one of the US' coasts?

No, we de-escalate, legitimize Russia's capture of Crimea and set about some sort of neutrality negotiations regarding their near abroad.

Blogger Kiev Communard November 13, 2016 7:33 AM  

I don't advocate anything. I just thought you may be interested in some new information source. It is up to you how to respond.

If you are interested in my personal opinion, I believe that most currently existing 'Great Powers' will cease to exist in 10-15 years from now. So any present debates may soon become just as irrelevant as mulling over Russian Empire vs. Austria-Hungary rivalry in the 1910s and wondering how it will transpire in 10 years.

Anonymous Avalanche November 13, 2016 8:13 AM  

"...would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State"

SNAKES and rhetoric!! The damned leftie/libs call them "boots" to hide the fact that they're NOT sending boots!

They're sending (mostly young) AMERICANS to bleed and die, to be brain-damaged and maimed, to be psychologically and emotionally injured -- and for WHAT?!?!

Anonymous Avalanche November 13, 2016 8:16 AM  

@2 "They should give him a Nobel Peace Prize already!"

You mean like they gave the obamination before he embarked on insane killing sprees all over the planet?! THAT prize is now worse than meaningless!!

Anonymous Avalanche November 13, 2016 8:17 AM  

(Hugos, anyone?!)

Anonymous Avalanche November 13, 2016 9:09 AM  

@80 "Or is it homophobic? Sexist?...
Well now I'm out of ammo.
That's all I got."

You left out it's mean -- MEAN is worse than any of those. "Mean" means "you hurt mah feelz!! You are bad bad bad!"

Blogger wreckage November 13, 2016 9:22 AM  

@150, if ten years were enough to see a great power lose so much reach as to become completely irrelevant, we wouldn't be discussing Russia at all.

We're going to see some upheaval, yes, and some of it may be unimaginably bloody, but at the end of it the maps are going to look surprisingly similar to how they do today.

Blogger Kiev Communard November 13, 2016 9:47 AM  

@155, I didn't imply only Russia, though it also has a number of serious problems of its own, most particularly, the ongoing process of Central Asians' massive resettlement in Russian large cities (such as Moscow). I have been to Russia before 2014 many times, and I could clearly see how the Central Asian populations of Moscow and St. Petersburg have been growing each year.

The situations in Libya and Syria may be seen as some early evidence to my claim. And the rest of the Middle East is none the better.

And I don't think you would object to the idea that the EU is currently teetering on the brink of breakup either.

And, of course, the fallout from the U.S. election presages some rather ugly internal strife in the future decade.

Finally, China's economic growth model is also going bust if Trump implements the foreign policies he has in mind. Considering the long history of China's internal civil wars (of which only a handful is known in the West), one may surmise that they are going to have some 'nice' times ahead of them.

Oh, and I have almost forgotten about Venezuela and Brazil as well.

So, in the nutshell it seems that the warnings made by Guillaume Faye and Martin Van Creveld are more than relevant, and the situation worldwide presages some kind of 'hybrid' World War I on the horizon.

Blogger Thucydides November 13, 2016 9:21 PM  

@150

I agree that changing demographics, economics and social structures will indeed change the map, but there are traditional "homelands" built around natural redoubts. Robert Kaplan has written rubout this (it is a theme of his writing), and we can look at long lasting civilizations like Persia, Turkey and Egypt which are entered around natural redoubts.

Russia has the rather dubious distinction of being open to invasion from virtually all directions (Kevian Rus was overrun and modern Russia was created by Russians retreating to the relatively inaccessible forests of Muscovy. I can see Russia being pressed harder from the South by the Islamists and the East from the Chinese than by the European West. the problem may simply correct itself as Russia is forced to turn its attention away from the West to deal with more existential problems.

Blogger Akulkis November 13, 2016 9:31 PM  

@23

Hey, idiot. The Cold War against the (((Soviet Union))) is over.

RUSSIANS are Christians. Now that the (((hijackers))) have been out of power in Russia for over 20 years, how about you give it a break, and realize that historically, Russia has been an ally for a long time.

Example -- the Russian Navy was founded by none other than John Paul Jones (of "I have not yet begun to fight!" fame). Throughout the 1861-65 war, the Russian Pacific Fleet (based in ice-bound Vladivostok) wintered over in San Fransisco every year. Australia would have been far more convenient.

And who did they sell Alaska to? Canada (i.e. the Brits)? No! They sold it to us. And for a steal.

Blogger dfordoom November 13, 2016 9:43 PM  

And probably US should recognize Crimea as Russian

Crimea has been Russian longer than California has been part of the US. NATO bases in Crimea would be like the Russians having a naval base in San Diego.

Putting conditions on recognising Russian control of Crimea would be like the Russians putting conditions on recognition of US control over California.

Blogger dfordoom November 13, 2016 9:47 PM  

@ A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents

"No fly zone" over Iraq, threatening to shoot down what was left of Saddam's air force is one thing, threatening to shoot down Russian air force aircraft over Syria for some ill defined purpose is very, very different.

Especially given that Russia has every legal right under international law to be in Syria. They're there at the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria.

Blogger Tommy Hass November 14, 2016 6:54 AM  

How is sending troops into your own territory "starting a war"? Russians have a history of being aggressive expansionists.

Blogger Tommy Hass November 14, 2016 6:55 AM  

"And probably US should recognize Crimea as Russian

Crimea has been Russian longer than California has been part of the US. NATO bases in Crimea would be like the Russians having a naval base in San Diego.

Putting conditions on recognising Russian control of Crimea would be like the Russians putting conditions on recognition of US control over California."

You are stupid. Crimea belongs to Ukraine. It is occupied territory.

Anonymous Discard November 14, 2016 12:14 PM  

I had thought, Tommy Hass, that the borders of the Soviet Republics were, like the borders of African countries, drawn for the convenience of the uncaring overlords rather than according to the realities on the ground. Specifically, that Nikita Kruzchev (?), the former Soviet boss, unilaterally declared the Crimea to be part of Ukraine rather than Russia. This was only 60 years ago.
Am I mistaken?

Blogger wreckage November 15, 2016 2:49 AM  

@162. You're mistaking my comment for a moral or ethical one. Russia will have Crimea. NATO giving it to them as a concession is an illusion, but one that works for NATO and for Russia. Neither wants to be humiliated by the other. By drawing a line then stepping back from it NATO defuses the brinksmanship in a manner that leaves both parties with some dignity.

Blogger wreckage November 15, 2016 2:52 AM  

The price of course would be that we in brotherly and cooperative fashion gratefully accept Russia's request for assistance in bringing the uncomfortable situation in Ukraine proper to an orderly and amenable close; we as protectors of Ukrainian welfare, and they as the undisputed protector of ethnic Russians everywhere.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts