Pretty much. Now is the time to continue the process correctly in all respects and not have a hint of bowing to outside influence.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rand Paul blocks Montenegro from joining NATO; McCain: He's "working for Putin"
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
Pretty much. Now is the time to continue the process correctly in all respects and not have a hint of bowing to outside influence.
shawnbuddy
Member
Yes. This is a country that needs all the help it can get. McCain is not wrong to point out that Putin wants it left undefended.
lol.
How do you mean was Russia meddling? They invaded some countries and installed their poppet goverments after the WWII and before fall of СССР.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
Yugoslavia itelf was almost invaded during 50's when Tito broke apart with Stalin. And then continued to walk the fine line between east and west as a leader of "non aligned movement" that consistent of countries like India, Egypt and 120 other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia#The_1948_Yugoslavia-Soviet_split
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement
You cant compare NATO and what Russia did before the breakup. There is a reason all the countries across Russian borders are building up their military and starting to think about mandatory conscription again.
For a republican to be working on Russia to expand their sphere of influence to the west, thats like treason.
kame-sennin
Member
Remember though, that was NOT foreign interference in a Russian election...
Theonik
Member
Because procurement deals are kind if a big deal for politicians.
gutter_trash
Banned
Take a guess.
LOL Yelstin was corrupt as fuck and his family bagged Aeroflot airline after the fall of the Soviet Union.
He made a deal with Vladimir Putin (his succesor) that he will make Putin President but to not JAIL any member of the Yeltsin family (because they were currupt)
kame-sennin
Member
Surely the Russian people must be grateful for our support!
theignoramus
Member
Why are you linking me articles about the Soviet era Cold War when I specifically asked a question about the post-Soviet Yeltsin era, when the Russian government was receptive to American soft power?
bonesmccoy
Banned
Beforehand I hope he shares all he knows about American POWs in Vietnam.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
meanwhile the republican president intends to increase the military budget by what $54b?
Doesn't admitting new member states to NATO diminish our sovereignty?. Going to war should be decided by the Congress elected by and accountable to the people of the United States of America.
How does expanding the trip-wire into global conflict with Russia serve to protect our sovereignty?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Considering American support was critical for the IMF to loan billions of the Russian state so they could pay long overdue wages, I would suspect that yes many Russians in 1996 would be highly grateful. "American Advisors" were recruited by Yeltsin's government, not the other way around, and direct connections with the Clinton admin are tenuous. The advisors didn't break into opposition offices and then leak dirt to the media, they organized voter strategies, taught the Russians how to conduct their polling to gather information more effectively, and advised the Yeltsin boys on how you were supposed to run a campaign because nobody had that kind of experience in Russia. It wasn't illegal, although if it had become public knowledge it likely would have tanked the Yeltsin campaign as their communist opposition would portray Boris as an American puppet. Not that Boris being pro-west was really a secret, part of his campaign was based on him saying that only he had the sufficient credentials as a reformer to secure cooperation and loans from western institutions.
More troubling than getting help from people who know how to run political campaigns who happened to be Americans was the total support from the famed Oligarchs, who formed a united front behind Yeltsin and between them and the state, had complete control over major Russian media outlets. There's also a major possibility that genuine vote fraud was conducted in some regions. And of course, the fact that major elements in Yeltsin's government were considering cancelling the election if polling made a defeat seem inevitable.
This sort of false equivalence was definitely rife among alt-right media circles in about December 2016 though, when all of the Trump-Russia connection stuff was coming out as part of the dual track strategy of "NO PUPPET, NO PUPPET", and "AMERICA DOES IT TOO SO SHUT UP".
How does protecting democratic nations from the machinations of dictatorships harm our standing as a democratic world power?
This is an argument that can be made, but it has nothing to do with protecting our sovereignty. And you also would have to believe that expanding and protecting our standing as the democratic world power is worth it. Was it worth it in Vietnam and Korea?
Should people in the United States have more of an influence over what the United States is than the way things are right now? Right now, I don't feel average Americans can hold anyone accountable for these bipartisan decisions. The bipartisan consensus allowed this country to go to war or police action on lies since at least Vietnam.
I am totally against more military spending for others in NATO. Wait, hang on... Gotta sign off on this budget Trump
proposed, spending over 50 billion on military stuff and things... Now where was I, ah yes... It's ridiculous to add new NATO allies, as our military spending might increase.
proposed, spending over 50 billion on military stuff and things... Now where was I, ah yes... It's ridiculous to add new NATO allies, as our military spending might increase.
Vietnam was not a democracy when we formally entered. The dichotomy between capitalist/communist countries was certainly not one of democracies v. dictatorships. Cannot even fathom the Kim's having control over the whole of Korea. And sadly MacArthur's hubris made that war worse.
Our republic is set up so that our elected representatives control foreign policy and set the course for our diplomatic corps. The bigger problem, which I agree, is that we currently go to war without any formal declaration of war. Which, although done by the President who is elected, bypasses the once-democratic checks on the process. We should likely only engage in conflict with an actual vote by Congress as prompted by the President. But I don't conceptualize an attack against a NATO member triggering that prompt by the President and subsequent vote by Congress as diminishing our sovereignty in any way.
CrocMother
Banned
Has he come out publicly against the new White House budget then?
I couldn't find anything.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Not really a good argument to make because Montenegro is extremely unlikely to be the triggering point for a conflict. It's already surrounded by EU and NATO member states (Bosnia & Herzegovina have been trying to get into both the EU and NATO but have not been accepted yet) and won't require specific extra protections or deployments to the region.
gutter_trash
Banned
Russia already interfeared in the US election and currently weakened the US's standing in the world
Russia is backing Far-Right and Far-Left anti-EU parties in EU countries to weaken EU's standing.
Luckily Netherlands rejected Wielders,
France is next to pass the test
.
Anybody here who doesn't take Russia seriously needs to get their allegiance checked
Russia is backing Far-Right and Far-Left anti-EU parties in EU countries to weaken EU's standing.
Luckily Netherlands rejected Wielders,
France is next to pass the test
.
Anybody here who doesn't take Russia seriously needs to get their allegiance checked
- Status