USA Politics

This is quite old obviously, but it only got uploaded today and is definitely still worth watching.

 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
So you seriously think that there would've been a serious risk of nuclear war if
  • Trump was less liked in Russia, or
  • Clinton had won the election
Click to expand...
Is it true that Clinton wanted to have a no fly zone over Syria and Putin said Russia would have retaliated if it had happened? Also, I've seen many different statements saying the threat would have been greater with Clinton, but I don't know if any of them are reliable sources. If someone could find a good non-typical news media source that states the actual truth about this, that would be much appreciated.

Also. From: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fearing-tr...-be-archived-canada-tackle-censorship-1594116
The Internet Archive, a US-based nonprofit digital library that preserves billions of webpages for historical record, is preparing to build a backup archive in Canada over fears of intrusion US President-elect Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
 
Travis The Dragon said:
Is it true that Clinton wanted to have a no fly zone over Syria and Putin said Russia would have retaliated if it had happened?
Click to expand...
I heard exactly the same argument from a collegue at work. He was glad Trump had won, because now tensions between Russia and the US would become less tense. He seemed seriously frightened of a clash, and now that fear has become a bit smaller. It sounded exaggerated to me (and apparently I find it more important to compare between the people Trump and Clinton and what they stand for), but I am interested in more opinions on this.
 
Soviet and US pilots were in direct combat with each other over Korea in 1950-53. With Stalin in command of the Soviets, and before anyone had really had any time to reflect over "mutual assured destruction". Still neither used their nukes.

Of course Russia and USA wouldn't end up in a nuclear war over the conflict in Syria.
 
That was indeed one of the most commonly mentioned arguments against Clinton - that she's a warmonger, and that she wants a no-fly-zone which risks a nuclear war. Most people forget that it's always two sides in a war, and that it was up to Putin whether he would have been stupid enough to launch a direct military confrontation against the US. This is the type of political understanding of people who get their world-view from video games. If the necessary and unalterable outcome of a no-fly-zone would have been a nuclear war between Russia and the US, Clinton would probably not have implemented it. Moreover, Putin would have considered whether it's worth risking global annihilation over this. The worst outcome of a no-fly-zone would have been a diplomatic ice age between the US and Russia.
 
I do not think Hillary would have started a nuclear war .. but I will say that she was certainly not in line with the anti-war wing of the Democratic party. You really heard none of this from her in the campaign.

It seems inevitable that there will be some sort of Cold War pt 2 will Russia, I think we are already in one and I would argue Cold War Pt 1 probably never really ended, it was paused. Question really is how Cold it gets this time around.
 
I'm not sure about that. During the Soviet era, a conventional war was a threat that felt much more real. Also, there was the Iron Curtain through Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR really was a massive change in Europe. I was just a boy when all this ended, but I had the feeling that back then, there was this feeling of two really massive blocks of power keeping each other at bay. Now the entire world order seems a lot more fragmented.
 
I was mainly referring to US-Russia relations ... it is certainly different than it was before, but relations are certainly poor now
 
Yes, but poor relations does, in my opinion, not equal cold war. The cold war always had this underlying premise of possible totalen Krieg. I don't feel that is an actual threat now.

Not that I was around to feel whether it was an actual threat 40 years ago ...
 
I think we got to a point for most of the Cold War .. this is my impression remembering it from the mid 1970s to the end that mutual self destruction pretty much prevented a nuclear war and it was occasionally used as "person "X" will lead us to a nuclear war" .. but that was really propaganda. At that point it seemed more wars being fought by proxy (either actual wars or covert/economic wars) to bring other countries to one side or the other. I think we see that now in the middle east, in the former Soviet states, certainly an economic war, and now cyber war.
 
Perun said:
The worst outcome of a no-fly-zone would have been a diplomatic ice age between the US and Russia.
Click to expand...

There is potential for other bad outcomes too, especially the effect of poor US-Russia relations on both countries' interests in other strategic areas of the globe, including the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe.

There are numerous tense areas where small or large proxy wars could break out, or existing conflicts could escalate, or countries currently deterred from aggression could get the idea that with the US and Russia not cooperating, this is their chance to seize some territory or do some ethnic cleansing. But the idea that a no-fly zone in Syria would lead to global nuclear war is a huge stretch -- it could be one link in a very long chain of causalities, but a lot else would have to go wrong before anyone should seriously worry about missiles flying over the North Pole.
 
No-fly zone at the moment is an automatic declaration of war on the Russian Federation. There has been legislature in Russia which controls deployment of their forces to Syria. You cannot just pack your stuff and go back home if U.S. planes appear on the sky. The point of the very deployment to Syrian soil is to render these 'proposals' from U.S. hawks ineffective. If Russia supported SAA from outside, e.g. from international waters and long range aviation from Ru airbases, then Russians could stop once U.S. is flying over Syrian skies.

Besides, if U.S. tried to impose no-fly now, Russians wouldn't ICBM American mainland, they would use conventional weapons to take care of U.S. equipment in the theatre. Kirov battlecruisers can wreck anything several hundred miles in circle. Since Assad is still the legitimate leader of Syria and he has made an official call to help against terrorism, U.S. would be an agressor and Russians just need to respond in kind. They don't need to fire the first nuclear shot. It's 2016, they have enough conventional weaponry to symmetrically respond. Unless U.S. brings 2-3 carrier battle groups and a shit ton of planes in allied bases around Syria. But that kind of escalation has several steps and lasts a while. It's not happening
 
That sounds very much like it's Russia making all the rules for the relationship, then. It's difficult to improve actual relations under those conditions, only avoid flashpoints by taking a passive role, which isn't the same thing at all.
 
It's either that or the U.S. dictates all the rules. Keep in mind that United States were the first peer that started 'disobeyance' of any type of agreement (even written if it wasn't ratified), circumvention of Security Council via arbitrary coalitions, or just plainly doing what SC didn't authorize them. In examples this would be expansion of NATO eastward, pulling out of missile treaties, Iraq II and Libya. They are not trustworthy. They speak of protecting civilian targets via no-fly zone, what they'll do after establishing air superiority is bomb the shit out of SAA from above. That's not a no-fly zone, that's USAF entering the war against local government, exactly what happened in Libya.
 
A bol.com blunder! For a while, the German title of a Trump book was given a name that looked like Mein Kampf.

c2d14d1d-ea59-4762-ba7c-f1472d18a054

Now they corrected it again:
https://www.bol.com/nl/p/donald-j-trump-great-again/9200000058020680/?suggestionType=typedsearch
9200000058020680.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top