Doubt it. I often pondered why the Chinese look south, east and even west to become more assertive but not north. Russian is very territorial, even though they have more territory than they could ever need they won't give an inch. I mean look at the border disputes Russia has with Japan. To japan those northern Kuril islands would be pretty valuable if we were to just talk about the land mass and natural resources alone, yet the Russians dgaf and won't budge a inch. Only way China is every claiming Siberia is if we reach some global society in which Russia is denuclearized otherwise Russia won't think twice about raining nukes on China in case of invasion.



Totally agree. Russia has been used as a scarecrow to waste trillions on things we don't need. We're moving towards a world that is more peaceful, interconnected and more dependent on one another, more than ever. The Germans are smart, they know Russia has valuable resources which the Germans want and need. It's a symbiotic relationship, but the reason we aren't happy about is we're losing our hegemonic grip. I'm all for it, it's time the US took care of its citizens domestically. I don't want my tax dollars being spent for American bases in Germany or Romania or Qatar or the Philippines.

So many people are crying in here that this give Russia leverage. This is of course true but the other fact is that it also gives Germany leverage on Russia. The path to peace is dependability not isolation. If Russias economy, middle class, voters, fill in the blank is dependent on international trade then you will see less and less confrontations and conflicts compared to if you isolate and impoverish a country and push its people to believe that those foreigners are making us suffer.

Like i said before, European countries are going to inch closer to Russia when it comes to trade and commerce. It's a trade market that's being hampered and most Euros are ready to move on.

thats the point though: the relationship between europe and russia could be very symbiotic, but the russian side is time and time again showing aggression and imperialistic ambitions. as I said before: they have just 140m people and an economy the size of italy - if europe is approaching russia without naivity, with due caution, then things can and will work well for all sides involved. in this case, russia simply doesnt have the capacities to really challenge or even invade europe.

but if europe deals with russia from a position of weakness, they can chip away at our unity, at our infrastructure, at our sovereignty. thats why Im in favor of raising our military budget to meet the 2% goal, so that we have the necessary firepower to defend ourselves even without the americans if necessary. if there's one thing that anybody with experience with russia/russians can tell you, its this: the russians respect strength and exploit weakness.
from a position of strength, we can then make deals with russia, lift the sanctions, build the pipeline(s), increase the trade volumes, and so on.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 12 2018 07:11pm

I wouldn't overlook Russia at all. It only took China 20 years to become a global economy to be reckoned with. Russia could do the same if they wanted. If Russia gets a year round warm water port or two or three, they WILL become a global economic powerhouse.







Full size: http://i.imgur.com/0KqnPWn.gifv




/e Ofc, they would have to start breeding like rabbits.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 12 2018 07:14pm

yeah, thats not gonna happen because russia, unlike china, lacks the manpower.

I know. But if starting right now, every Russian had like 15 kids, in 20 years they would have a population the size of China.
That's unrealistic, but they could very well recall all the other Russians in the world as well.

/e Not to mention, that these days actual on the ground manpower is not as important as it was in wars gone by.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 12 2018 07:21pm

Don't necessarily agree with this. In 1994 after the USSR collapsed and much of eastern Europe, including Russia was in shambles we promised them that NATO won't expand into eastern Europe. We broke that promise inching closer and closer placing military bases closes are closer to their borders, installing THAAD systems that point towards Russia and can be retrofitted with nuclear warheads in a matter of hours. In your opinion why was NATO expansion needed in the 90s and early 2000s? It was nonsensical. Now most say well these countries have the right to choose what they do and who they can create military alliances with, but if that's the case then you cant get mad when Russia responds. They still view themselves as a regional superpower. You can't go into their sphere of influence to places like Ukraine and expect them to idly sit by as all of the sudden there's NATO at its doorstep building up. Ukraine is to Russia in a way as Taiwan or Hong Kong is to China. Yeah we can be valiant and noble discussing how these places deserve to be free and choose whatever they want to do but that's not the way the world works.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jul 12 2018 07:51pm

Oh, I'm not one of those "russia is THE evil empire"-guys. But I'm also not buying into the "poor russians had no choice but to annex the crimea because the nato pressured them too much"-narrative often times found in leftist circles.

Both sides have to take some blame for the fucked up situation in ukraine, but in the end, the russian invasion of crimea still was an invasion. Their support of the war in eastern urkaine is also a fact. And its quite well-proven that they are trying to stir the pot in western societies and political systems. Did russian interference in the 2016 presidential election unequivocally decide the outcome of the election? Hell no, and thats why the overdramatization of "muh, RUSSIA!!!" by democrats and the anti-trump media is dishonest and misleading - but russian interference, as minor as it might have been, is still a fact.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 12 2018 08:04pm

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy? Why are there only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe’s protection, then loses billions on Trade. Must pay 2% of GDP IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025.


Mark Warner
@MarkWarner
NATO is the reason that summit you’re at isn’t being conducted in Russian.

Brilliant response

Also just like with North Korea, Trump bragging about false accomplishments:

not really. the underlying question trump is raising here is whether the geostrategic benefit of protecting europe via the nato is still worth the cost, particularly considering the fact that most european nato members dont carry their own weight - not because they cant; they just dont want to.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 12 2018 10:39pm