Politico: Putin's Long Game

[Dr. Arch]

Didn't know where to post this, but here it is. It's a very lengthy, yet nuanced analysis of the political events that have led to the relationship between the US and Russia today and how the future may unfold.

What does everyone think?

Here's an excerpt:

"What both administrations fail to realize is that the West is already at war, whether it wants to be or not. It may not be a war we recognize, but it is a war. This war seeks, at home and abroad, to erode our values, our democracy, and our institutional strength; to dilute our ability to sort fact from fiction, or moral right from wrong; and to convince us to make decisions against our own best interests."

Link: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/putins-real-long-game-214589?cmpid=sf

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I doubt it's narrative is completely accurate, but I think it contains a lot of truth.


Yes, it's a war. One that most of the US doesn't *get*. More of a "long twilight struggle" thing than simple posturing, nuclear talks and proxy fights.


I agree that the old order is over. Not just internationally, but domestically too. It doesn't matter if Americans want the 1950s, the 1980s, the 90s or the Obama years back. They're never coming back.

I disagree with the politico piece completely in one thing. Trump has NO possibility of being the right guy in the right place at the right time. If America needs to put its house and neighborhood in order, then Trump is the maniac with a can of gas a lighter. He'll have a big grin on his face as he watches everything burn.

Really, our only hope now is that the GOP comes to its senses and impeaches him, or that we get lucky and he's removed from office in some other not-too-damaging way.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One problem with that piece as I see it is that it takes as a given that it is in America's own interest to be the policeman of the world.  While it certainly is in the interest of the EU that we continue to shoulder an outsided burden, I do think it is time to consider refactoring NATO, largely by making it live up to it's name and dropping most of the Southern European countries from the alliance, with the exception of Span and Portugal.  The only reason to continue a US military presence in Southern Europe is to serve as a staging area into the Middle East and right now, there is no particular realpolitik rationale for staying involved in that area.  Pulling back to a NATO core (including Poland and the Baltic states), South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, and of course the Americas would both save us money and more importantly signal we're not going to play policeman of the world any longer.

The only negative I see of such a strategy is whether it is sustainable or would it lead to additional cutbacks that would make us more vulnerable to actual threats to the homeland.

[GMantis]

Preposterous hysteria. It seems every nonsense written about Russia - wild conspiracy theories, absurd dreams about invasion, ridiculous accusations (Russia's responsible for the migrant crisis?!) - since the beginning of 2014 has been crammed into just one article. Not surprising when the author was the advisor of Saakashvilli.

[Virginiá]

Preposterous hysteria. It seems every nonsense written about Russia - wild conspiracy theories, absurd dreams about invasion, ridiculous accusations (Russia's responsible for the migrant crisis?!) - since the beginning of 2014 has been crammed into just one article. Not surprising when the author was the advisor of Saakashvilli.

It only said they were inflaming the situation, as it is destabilizing the old world order in Europe.

[GMantis]

Preposterous hysteria. It seems every nonsense written about Russia - wild conspiracy theories, absurd dreams about invasion, ridiculous accusations (Russia's responsible for the migrant crisis?!) - since the beginning of 2014 has been crammed into just one article. Not surprising when the author was the advisor of Saakashvilli.

It only said they were inflaming the situation, as it is destabilizing the old world order in Europe.

By this logic, you could also levy the same charges against the United States who were directly or indirectly supporting the Syrian opposition before Russia sent forces to help Assad.

[Virginiá]

Preposterous hysteria. It seems every nonsense written about Russia - wild conspiracy theories, absurd dreams about invasion, ridiculous accusations (Russia's responsible for the migrant crisis?!) - since the beginning of 2014 has been crammed into just one article. Not surprising when the author was the advisor of Saakashvilli.

It only said they were inflaming the situation, as it is destabilizing the old world order in Europe.

By this logic, you could also levy the same charges against the United States who were directly or indirectly supporting the Syrian opposition before Russia sent forces to help Assad.

I'm only stating that the article said inflaming (their word) whereas you said in your post that they said Russia was responsible.

I don't really have an opinion on this right now

[Meclazine for Israel]

I dont think Russians will be taking over the world anytime soon. The economy there is nowhere near that of the US.

Dishonest media. So sad!

There is political fantasy and there is actual reality. Trump is a clever negotiator. He will get US-Russia relations back on track.

They have a few local issues they need to work on anyway.

https://youtu.be/heso_4RUDWU