Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Florestan]

A key aspect of the Soviet Union is that many Russians were moved to the satellite republics. I say "were moved" because I'm not sure how much say individuals ever had in the move.

But the overall result was quite deliberate. Regions that were not "Russia" ended up with very sizeable Russian populations. And those populations are still there after the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Estonia is 25% Russian, compared to 8% in the 1920s.

Exactly. And at the same time Russians were "moved in", the natives were "moved out". To be fair, though, that policy was initiated during the Tsars. Stalin only perfected it.

This is the main reason I reject sternly any suggestion of Republic of Moldavia being reunited with Romania and in the improbable case of a referendum I will vote against it: incorporating a sizeable Russian population into the Romanian state would be sheer, suicidal folly.

[PerfectWagnerite]

There is no evidence whatsoever of voter fraud in the sense of people (read: black people) voting mutiple times. But that was what Pence (posing as Mr Squeaky Clean) was suggesting.

He couldn't bring himself to do what McCain did, eight years ago, when a similarly deluded audience member siad that Obama was "an Arab". Gently, but roundly dismiss that thought.

Exactly, Trump's gang and the so-called "conservatives" (not that they have anything in common really) chalks everything up to a liberal conspiracy: the cards are stacked against them from the start, they are misquoted, people just "had it in" for them etc. it is pretty tedious.

Trump and those die-hard nuts that support him are constantly looking for people to blame. Factories are closing and moving overseas. Well it must be because Mexicans are taking over all the jobs. Accept it: jobs are going overseas and no matter who is president they are NEVER coming back, deal it with ! All Muslims are terrorists until proven innocent (the bit during the debate when El Groper lectures the Muslim woman about how she needs to tell on her neighbor is both scary and bizarre. They are angry and are looking for scapegoats. The man just spews venom whereever he goes, instigating hate, it is tough to watch.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

The making of USSR 2.0, as Karl puts it, is a mattter of time. It may not be around the corner, but they are patient.

As Romanian, I fully confirm this.

Would either of you guys like to take a stab at answering the question I posed to Jeffrey in post #5286?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I think it may be splitting hairs to say that Putin cannot make Russia into USSR 2.0.  The important points as I see them are that Putin is in effect a quasi-Stalin autocrat, only this time with some of the trappings of democracy;  and Russia remains a nuclear power.  It were foolhardy to dismiss the potential hazards.

Actually, the current model is very like that of long-lasting technically democratic states where there is only one party that counts: Mexico under the PRI, Japan under the LDP, or Singapore under the PAP. Other parties exist, but they play the role of spoilers or window-dressing. Another analogy is with US urban machine politics, but on a much bigger scale.

[André]

Would either of you guys like to take a stab at answering the question I posed to Jeffrey in post #5286?

Which part ?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Which part ?

In brief: if Russia is so keen to recreate the USSR, why didn't it take over Georgia when it had the chance?

[kishnevi]

In brief: if Russia is so keen to recreate the USSR, why didn't it take over Georgia when it had the chance?

Who said it didn't? A tame pet regime for a nominally independent country is much better PR than actually taking full possession.

Notice that Russia openly intervened in Ukraine only when the pet regime in place there lost power.

[André]

If you read this exceedingly well written account of the Georgia-Russia War, on Wikipedia,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

[url][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War/url]

you will find the answer(s). Read in particular the sections relating to "Russian interests and involvement", "Aftermath", and the "Geopolitical impact". You can skip the overlong battle by battle recension.

Russian president Medvedev declared: "the peace-enforcement operation has achieved its goal; security for peacekeepers and civilians has been restored. The agressor was punished, suffering huge losses". This had been preceded by the so-called "passportization" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two autonomous regions within the republic of Georgia, and their subsequent removal from Georgia.

In other words, Russia has surgically excised two regions from the republic of Georgia, which were instantly recognized by Russia as independent states. Goal achieved, the West applauds.

Read in particular the section on geopolitical impacts. It couldn't be more simply put.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Both of you are missing the point. "Recreating the USSR or Russian Empire" means recreating the USSR or Russian Empire (i.e. a single state). I submit that is the most likely impression it creates in the mind of a listener.

It doesn't mean "being surrounded by non-threatening states that aren't members of a hostile military alliance." That sounds a lot less sinister, which is why lines like "Putin wants to recreate the USSR" are essentially a form of scaremongering.

[kishnevi]

Both of you are missing the point. "Recreating the USSR or Russian Empire" means recreating the USSR or Russian Empire (i.e. a single state). I submit that is the most likely impression it creates in the mind of a listener.

It doesn't mean "being surrounded by non-threatening states that aren't members of a hostile military alliance." That sounds a lot less sinister, which is why lines like "Putin wants to recreate the USSR" are essentially a form of scaremongering.

Soviet empire means subservient states surrounding the dominant country.  Like Poland, etc. during the Cold War.
And the only reason NATO would be hostile to Russia is if Russia was being aggressive to its neighbors.

But that is what Putin wants.  He is the one stirring up hostility and aggression.

[André]

Archaic Torso: You miss the geopolitical implications of the Medvedev doctrine and the fact that the total or partial russification of practically all neighboring states is the logical step toward a future military move. The West's non response to this clearly stated doctrine is the greatest threat the neighbouring countries have to fear. As I said earlier, the russians are very patient. They slowly, methodically place their pieces on the chessboard. A chess game takes longer than a video game.

I suggest you read that setion of the wiki article.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Soviet empire means subservient states surrounding the dominant country.  Like Poland, etc. during the Cold War.
And the only reason NATO would be hostile to Russia is if Russia was being aggressive to its neighbors.

But that is what Putin wants.  He is the one stirring up hostility and aggression.

How do you suppose our leaders in Washington would react if Canada or Mexico joined a military alliance led by Russia or China?

Would they perceive it as hostile, or just local folks being friendly?

[André]

Here is an extract from that sub section of the 2008 Russo-georgian war on Wikipedia.

The war in Georgia showed Russia's assertiveness in revising international relations and undermining the hegemony of the United States. Shortly after the war, Russian president Medvedev unveiled a five-point Russian foreign policy. The Medvedev Doctrine stated that "protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country". The presence of Russian citizens in foreign countries would form a doctrinal foundation for invasion if needed. Medvedev's statement that there were areas in which Russia had "privileged interests", underlined Russia's particular interest in the former Soviet Union and the fact that Russia would feel endangered by subversion of local pro-Russian regimes.

This is just to facilitate the understanding of a very complex politic-military operation. The whole thing is really worth reading.

[Florestan]

How do you suppose our leaders in Washington would react if Canada or Mexico joined a military alliance led by Russia or China?

Would they perceive it as hostile, or just local folks being friendly?

If this is supposed to work as an analogy for the Baltic States, Poland and Romania joining NATO, itr is both flawed and disingenuous. After centuries of experiencing Russian imperalism and aggression, ranging from excissing parts of their territory to militarily occupying and ruling them, from interfering directly into the workings of their legislative bodies to crushing national liberation uprisings , from wiping them off the map enitrely to turning them into puppet states and anything in between, those countries (rightly) saw in joining NATO the big opportunity for, and the only way towards, being at long last safe, at least theoretically, from Russian depredations. It was emphatically not an act of aggression (it si precisely Russia, whether in the disguise of the Russian Empire or the USSR, that has always been the aggressor) but a defensive one.

Frankly, I am surprised you can buy the shameful Russian propaganda, which is exactly like an inveterate rapist complaining that his former victims being put under direct police protection means they harbor hostile intentions towards him.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

If this is supposed to work as an analogy for the Baltic States, Poland and Romania joining NATO, itr is both flawed and disingenuous.

We've been over this before, so I'll just reiterate my belief that NATO should have been closed down in the 1990s, and that it was a possibly fatal mistake to expand it, and for the USA to be involved in defending an ever expanding list of client states.

The analogy is not as flawed as you think - Latin American countries have suffered much from US meddling over the centuries; I can understand why they would want to join such an alliance. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.

[André]

"Trump has become a hate word"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/us/midwest-trump-school-chants/


This happened months ago but somehow, I had not seen any mention of such things. Disturbing.

[kishnevi]

We've been over this before, so I'll just reiterate my belief that NATO should have been closed down in the 1990s, and that it was a possibly fatal mistake to expand it, and for the USA to be involved in defending an ever expanding list of client states.

The analogy is not as flawed as you think - Latin American countries have suffered much from US meddling over the centuries; I can understand why they would want to join such an alliance. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.

There is such an organization, the OAS.
Of which the US is a leading member.

But US meddling in Latin America is, while not trivial, far less than Russian meddling in East Europe.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

There is such an organization, the OAS.
Of which the US is a leading member.

Yes, but it's not actually a military alliance, is it?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

But US meddling in Latin America is, while not trivial, far less than Russian meddling in East Europe.

I think that's disputable. Just for reference purposes, I'll put this list here. It stops in 1996, because that's when it was compiled:

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

[Karl Henning]

Lawd, but he really is a train-wreck topped with a hairpiece:

Trump: I didn't sexually assault a People magazine reporter, because "look at her"