[ennui2]

Putin is a hawk. There's no getting around it. To blame anything other than Putin is just trying to spin some alternate-universe fantasy where he would do anything other than what he's doing now, which is cause geopolitical instability. He's really not that different in approach from Ahmadinejad in his lack of ability to compromise. Notice how negotiations with Iran have eased somewhat after that loser left. The same is true with Russia. Once they get someone else in there who is easier to deal with, you'd be surprised how much tensions can ease. But since we're not in control of that situation, why not just blame our elected officials? If you don't like Obama, how well do you think someone like Rand Paul or Jeb Bush would handle foreign policy? Out of frying pan and into the fire.

[AgentR11]

The same is true with Russia. Once they get someone else in there who is easier to deal with, you'd be surprised how much tensions can ease. But since we're not in control of that situation, why not just blame our elected officials?

Errr... First you're on the blame thing again. Couldn't care less, its all Putin's fault. Fine. So what. Changes nada.

Secondly, if Putin were to lose the next election, he will lose to people that are much more hostile to the West than he is. This fantasy that some Nemtsov'esque US State Dept shill will win the presidency of Russia if only we can inflict enough economic pain on them is absolutely unsupportable by facts on the ground.

You're deluded, and need to stop drinking the coolaid. Russia is our mortal enemy; we either get a hawk like Putin, or we get a sneaker pounding Hawk like Krutschev. The days of Russia pumping money to fat Russian oligarchs living in London is probably over for good.

If you don't like Obama, how well do you think someone like Rand Paul or Jeb Bush would handle foreign policy? Out of frying pan and into the fire.

I think we have a very weak selection to choose from, at a time when we really, REALLY needed a hard headed realist. I don't suppose we could resurrect FDR... Not that I'd vote for him, but the US will elect a Dem in '16 I think; and it'd be so nice if the selected Dem was not a moron.

[KaiserJeep]

Wrong Roosevelt. We don't need an FDR, we need a Teddy.

[Plantagenet]

...why not just blame our elected officials? If you don't like Obama, how well do you think someone like Rand Paul or Jeb Bush would handle foreign policy? Out of frying pan and into the fire.

Its far more likely that Hillary will be the next POTUS. Given the way she botched US-Relations while she was secretary of state and plunged the US into a new Cold War with Russia, I'm not optimistic about the next several years.


Obama and Hillary's bungling of the very important US-Russia relationship has now reset US-Russia relations back to Cold War tensions

[Cid_Yama]

A year and a half ago China tested it's first hypersonic missile delivery system.

China's stepping up its bid for ballistic missile superiority, having just successfully test-fired the country's first hypersonic missile delivery vehicle, one capable of penetrating American air defenses to potentially deliver nuclear warheads. The Pentagon is not amused.

The WU-14 hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) is part of China's extremely secretive missile development program.

It's assumed that the HGV is launched aboard an ICBM, separates from the missile's final stage while still in space, some 62 miles above the planet's surface, and then zooms back into the atmosphere at more than ten times the speed of sound—around mach 10 or 7,680 miles per hour. That's fast enough to enter American airspace before we even react. By comparison, today's cruise missile technology tops out at around 500 to 600 mph.

link

You people really don't want to start a war with Russia/China. It's the last stupid thing you will ever do.

[Tanada]

A year and a half ago China tested it's first hypersonic missile delivery system.

China's stepping up its bid for ballistic missile superiority, having just successfully test-fired the country's first hypersonic missile delivery vehicle, one capable of penetrating American air defenses to potentially deliver nuclear warheads. The Pentagon is not amused.

The WU-14 hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) is part of China's extremely secretive missile development program.

It's assumed that the HGV is launched aboard an ICBM, separates from the missile's final stage while still in space, some 62 miles above the planet's surface, and then zooms back into the atmosphere at more than ten times the speed of sound—around mach 10 or 7,680 miles per hour. That's fast enough to enter American airspace before we even react. By comparison, today's cruise missile technology tops out at around 500 to 600 mph.

link

You people really don't want to start a war with Russia/China. It's the last stupid thing you will ever do.

Pride goeth before the fall. History is replete with examples of leaders who were over confident, proud and arrogant. In every case they over reached until they spread themselves so thin that when the other powers had had enough the prideful came tumbling down. Sometimes like Hitler they provoked such fanatical following that they caused a blood bath destroying their own people. Others like Napoleon at Waterloo one killed thousands before their total defeat.

The USA has become unreasonably prideful of our capabilities. While on the one hand our fighting personnel have become exhausted by deployment to combat zones three, four or even more times, seeing comrades killed or permanently disabled each time...On the other hand we have invested heavily in so called 'Drone' technology and other remote attack capabilities sending missiles and bombs in to target theoretically an individual...We no longer have the numbers of troops we would need to engage in real active combat on the ground. As much as I love the Air Force and Navy they can only destroy targets. To capture territory you have to put lots and lots of boots on the ground. We do not have those boots any more, we cut our forces deeply in the 1990's and never rebuilt them despite having many of them in active combat from 2003-2015.

Couple that with the misguided belief that 'Drone strikes' and aerial bombardment will 'cut the head off the snake' and you have a deadly danger. We have 'Eliminated the head of Al Quida/ISIL/ISIS' how many times now with bombs or small unit raids? Did the 'snake' we are fighting suddenly die from losing its head and someone forgot to tell me?

Worst of all we have spent the last 25 years starting with Somalia under George H.W. Bush all the way up through today fighting small units of militia quality enemies who are fighting us because they have personal motivations for doing so. Many of them are fighting for revenge and/or religious motivations meaning they will keep fighting until they are convinced whatever they believe is 'Justice' has been served.

Despite all of our pretensions otherwise human beings are primarily Tribal creatures. Sometimes for a while we manage to adopt a very large group as our tribe and shift loyalty to our nation-state, but these loyalties rarely last more than a few generations. In the Mid-east a country like Afghanistan has always been an alliance of tribal leaders. As far as that goes what was called Yugoslavia when I was growing up was the same thing, an alliance of 'tribes' that disintegrated when the conglomerated parts believed they were no longer threatened by outside forces and were more threatened by next door neighbors within their 'nation'. Even Czechoslovakia, where the Czechs and the Slovaks speak the same language and have common roots going back a thousand years split up when the outside threat was removed.

Well I have news for some of you folks, Russia is made up of a couple hundred million people who have the same culture, language and belief system. The USSR was made up of a forced conglomeration much like the Russian Empire of the 1800's, and it fell apart because of that. Russia on the other hand is not a conglomeration, it is a nation state in the same way that Germany or Spain are, except it covers a lot more territory, has many more citizens and a great many more resources.

Attacking Russia is nothing like attacking Iraq (made up of three very different cultures smooshed into one country) or Afghanistan (a region of mountains inhabited by thousands of tribal family clan units). Russia despite what our F-22 wing of fighter might or might not be capable of has a very capable air defense network and they have spent the last decade bringing it up to modern technological standards. It is not the decayed crumbling weak system of the late 1980's, it is a 21st century air defense network with multiple layers. This is not World War II when the USA sent 1,000 bomber raids in to attack the enemy, nor is it the 1980's when the USA had hundreds of Bomber aircraft ready to launch within hours for total war. We now have well under 100 modern large B-1 and B-2 bombers combined, and we have something like 50 F-22 fighters. Even if we wanted to a direct attack on Russia would be virtual suicide. The standard answer to that is cruise missiles, and in the 1990's they proved to be formidable weapons. Well I hate to break it to you but this is 2015 not 1991 and Russia has a sophisticated modern defense system, not Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Air Force or Noriega's Panama either. Against that type of opponent you lose more than half of your cruise missiles, which makes using them against anything but vital targets an extremely large waste of money. Oh and we also didn't replace all of the ones we used in the 1990's, so if we are talking about a conventional attack it better be a war ending attack because you probably are not going to get a second chance before you run out of missiles.

[Plantagenet]

Attacking Russia is nothing like attacking Iraq (made up of three very different cultures smooshed into one country) or Afghanistan (a region of mountains inhabited by thousands of tribal family clan units). Russia despite what our F-22 wing of fighter might or might not be capable of has a very capable air defense network and they have spent the last decade bringing it up to modern technological standards. It is not the decayed crumbling weak system of the late 1980's, it is a 21st century air defense network with multiple layers. This is not World War II when the USA sent 1,000 bomber raids in to attack the enemy, nor is it the 1980's when the USA had hundreds of Bomber aircraft ready to launch within hours for total war. We now have well under 100 modern large B-1 and B-2 bombers combined, and we have something like 50 F-22 fighters. Even if we wanted to a direct attack on Russia would be virtual suicide. The standard answer to that is cruise missiles, and in the 1990's they proved to be formidable weapons. Well I hate to break it to you but this is 2015 not 1991 and Russia has a sophisticated modern defense system, not Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Air Force or Noriega's Panama either. Against that type of opponent you lose more than half of your cruise missiles, which makes using them against anything but vital targets an extremely large waste of money. Oh and we also didn't replace all of the ones we used in the 1990's, so if we are talking about a conventional attack it better be a war ending attack because you probably are not going to get a second chance before you run out of missiles.

I think its highly unlikely that Obama will attack Russia.

IMHO, Obama's seemingly aggressive moves of stationing tanks in Poland and threatening to move F-22s to Europe shouldn't be taken seriously. These threats are just bluffs --- Obama is hoping that if he acts tough and threatens Russia then he can get Putin to stand down from his invasion of Ukraine while Putin believes if he keeps biting off pieces of Ukraine and ramping up the new cold war, then obama will eventually back down.

In a poker game between Putin and Obama, I'd put my money on Putin.

[Withnail]

IMHO, Obama's seemingly aggressive moves of stationing tanks in Poland and threatening to move F-22s to Europe shouldn't be taken seriously. These threats are just bluffs --- Obama is hoping that if he acts tough and threatens Russia then he can get Putin to stand down from his invasion of Ukraine while Putin believes if he keeps biting off pieces of Ukraine and ramping up the new cold war, then obama will eventually back down.

In a poker game between Putin and Obama, I'd put my money on Putin.

What invasion of Ukraine? A tiny part of Ukraine is currently run by rebels. They are not expanding their territory and Russia does not recognise the rebel republics.