US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The INF treaty served a good and well defined purpose, 20-30 years ago. Technology has advanced to the point where both countries were well capable of killing massive amounts of people in the "intermediate" range without using the banned weapon systems.

It is not much of a concern for the US as we are outside of the "Intermediate" range from the people who don't like us. Russia does not have that advantage.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rest assured, that all sides still have the capability of killing people, regardless of the range, and after all, that's what's important.

I have long suspected that the next major use of nuclear weapons would be between Pakistan and India both countries are in disagreement with each other. Pakistan has amassed over 300 short range nuclear tipped missiles to be used in case of war against India.

A nuclear war between these two countries could bring the other nuclear capable countries to the peace table for a treaty no one ever keeps anyway.

Gentlemen war is hell

I have departed from the US Politics thread however and I will only add one more thought I look forward to Putin's retirement

[ikalugin]

That may happen to an extend in 2024. But I doubt that demonisation would stop.

[Catfish]

^ why "demonisation"? I openly admit Mr. Putin is an intelligent and - when it comes to Russia's interests - a reasonable, dependable and calculable man.
Still, have a close look at what he does, and how.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ why "demonisation"? I openly admit Mr. Putin is an intelligent and - when it comes to Russia's interests - a reasonable, dependable and calculable man.
Still, have a close look at what he does, and how.

This article is a good example of demonisation.


But because that narrative has been consistent for over a decade you don't see it that way I guess.
The irony is that by demonisation you create a cult of personality for Putin and through that undermine trust into your own institutions.

[Catfish]

It is just about trying to influence. So you are asserting that Russia does nothing of the kind?
Why do you call a reaction to Russia's meddling with other nations "demonisation"?

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Catfish

It is just about trying to influence. So you are asserting that Russia does nothing of the kind?
Why do you call a reaction to Russia's meddling with other nations "demonisation"?

Influencing is quite common in the modern world, especially by politically motivated individuals and private organisations (I do not need to remind you of how some people view Soros and what he does).

The issue I have with the current situation is how the nature and scale of this influence is blown out of proportion in the US (some other countries too for that matter, this is not US specific) to create a demonisation narrative of the external (and internal) groups.
One can for example remember the reporting about political ad campaighns on social media and how they were so small that even I could fund them yet presented as something apocalyptic.


The 2016 influence story is only a part of the lengthy demonisation effort of Putin specifically and Russia in general. There are many other obvious examples of this, but to stay within my favourite military-technical area, one could remember the initial coverage of 080808 war.
In a way that coverage was very much the same as the article you have linked, they only interviewed one side for example.

[Catfish]

Yes, influencing (or trying to influence) is common and everyone does it. Also Putin.

The issue I have with the current situation is how the nature and scale of this influence is blown out of proportion in the US (some other countries too for that matter, this is not US specific) to create a demonisation narrative of the external (and internal) groups.

I would not say it is "blown out of proportion" when you look at how effective they were, if you only look at Trump and brexit. It is not only about influencing a direct opinion, it is about general destabilizing, and Russia does a good job at that.

You would not suggest that neutral or especially western media report favourably about the Russio-Georgian war, or about the annexation of the Krim? Of course, after those 'social' media (lmao) campaigns all big news agencies that do not support a certain president are fake news.. which is why the general effort of destabilization may indeed be regarded as successful.

[ikalugin]

I am not talking about how western media should have been covering 080808 war positively, I am talking about how that war was covered negatively and one sided when for example compared to the post war EU investigations report.

It was amusing at the time though, as it t was possible to troll online Americans who believed that the US state of Georgia was invaded by evil Russian aggressors.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I am not talking about how western media should have been covering 080808 war positively, I am talking about how that war was covered negatively and one sided [...]

So .. you just said it was covered negatively, while it should have been different

It was amusing at the time though, as it t was possible to troll online Americans who believed that the US state of Georgia was invaded by evil Russian aggressors.

So Putin missed a perfect opportunity to invade the american Georgia

[em2nought]

My bet is that Russia is being vilified today because it is a predominately Caucasian country. The left in the USA preferred them as communists. The thing the left most worry about would be if the USA became allies with Russia dropping soon to be Islamic Europe in the process.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by em2nought

My bet is that Russia is being vilified today because it is a predominately Caucasian country. The left in the USA preferred them as communists. The thing the left most worry about would be if the USA became allies with Russia dropping soon to be Islamic Europe in the process.

Caucasian

 

[Catfish]

..the left preferred them [the Russians] as communists.."

I would have betted my life that it was the politically right wing that thought of Russians as the evil communists. Learning something new every day here ..

Of course in theses day, information does not seem to be worth a penny anymore. Thanks to Russia, i might say

[Subnuts]

The ethnic background of the majority of Russians is actually insane complicated, and it's basically impossible to describe most of them as belonging to a single monolithic ethnic group, but since the forum's chief geneticist has gone ahead and decided they're actually white, I'll just go to bed now.

[August]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

The ethnic background of the majority of Russians is actually insane complicated, and it's basically impossible to describe most of them as belonging to a single monolithic ethnic group, but since the forum's chief geneticist has gone ahead and decided they're actually white, I'll just go to bed now.

Actually "white" is neither monolithic or mono-ethnic but I think it does describe the majority of modern Russians no?

[vienna]

It actually depends on what you'd consider "Russian" as opposed to what the Russians consider "Russian". Since Russia, proper, without all the territories laid claim to by the Russian government(s) over time, extends from Eastern Europe to Asia, the mix of ethniciies and races is wide: if you add in all the Slavic countries and any other areas Russia has claimed over the years, the mix is even greater and the size of the "Russian/Caucasian/etc." majority lessens...


Here is all you you need to know about the Russian population:

Demographics of Russia --


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia


Te real thing about definitions of 'white' or 'Caucasian' is the definitions are fungible, usually to fit whatever political, social, or other axe is being ground; early in the history of US immigration growth, Italians were sometimes considered to not be 'white' or 'Caucasian', strictly speaking an, more, recently, those from Latin American origins, who once were lumped into the 'white' category, now find themselves being parsed out of the stats. Kind of makes you wonder if maybe the next step is to "de-white" the Scots and Irish...














<O>