The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Rasmussen on Conservative Russophilia
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Recent Rasmussen poll:

… 52% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the president’s statement last Sunday that “… having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world, and an asset to our country, not a liability.” Just 27% disagree, but another 21% are undecided.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree with the statement. Among Democrats, 29% agree; 41% disagree, and 29% are undecided. …

In a sharp turnaround from the Cold War years, 79% of conservatives agree that it’s better to be friends with Russia, but just 27% of liberals share that view.

I wrote about this as a return to pre-Soviet norms back in February:

For if you take the long historical view it is the Liberals/Left who have historically been far less enamored of Russia.

Who talked of the “gendarme of Europe” and “prison of peoples” in 19th century political discourse? Socialists, not conservatives. Marx had very little good to say about Russia and Eastern Europe in general, the idea being that the advanced Western nations were the only ones of interest from a Communist revolutionary perspective.

No, this doesn’t appear to be on account of Republican/conservative infatuation with Putler, as /r/politics and the Blue Checkmarks would have you believe.

Opinion towards him remains extremely negative across the American political spectrum.

gallup-usa-views-putin

This is perhaps the one somewhat unexpected element in this picture:

Men feel much more strongly than women that it’s better “having Russia in a friendly posture.” Those under 40 are only slightly less likely than their elders to agree.

In contrast, the February 2017 poll found Republican opinions on Russia uniformly increasing with younger age groups, going from 31% positive/69% negative amongst the 65+ year olds to 73% positive/25% negative amongst the 18-29 year olds.

This implies that opinion towards Russia decreases with age amongst the younger non-Republican population. But that doesn’t seem to tally with other polls I’ve seen. Or common sense. Older Democrats tend to be Clintonistas, and virulently Russophobic – they genuinely believe Putler stole the 2016 elections – while younger ones are lefty Bernie Bros, who don’t exactly admire Russia, but are realistic enough to acknowledge that the KGB wasn’t behind the KKK.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Politics, Republicans, Russia, Russophobes, USA 
Hide 60 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Jason Liu says:

    It’s not about realism, young people are just more into the idealistic “world peace” schtick.

    As it stands now communism is more likely to erupt in the west than anywhere else, so maybe Marx was right in that regard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I think a world with multiple great powers in it is more likely to be peaceful than a world with merely one. You're hedging your bets: if something goes infectious or buggy with one power, the others can check it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/rasmussen-on-conservative-russophilia/#comment-2084995
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Flavius says:

    “… having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world, and an asset to our country, not a liability.”

    It is nearly impossible for someone in good faith to consider this proposition and not agree with it. The convolutions of thought necessary to prop up disagreement should properly qualify one as courting insanity. It appears our politics have led many to that precipice. I believe even our newly conjoined war monger class of left and right wing politicians and bureaucrats in Washington would find some way to agree with it, if only to satisfy their appetites for hypocrisy. I’m ordinarily no fan of Nietzsche, himself having wobbled his way to an asylum, but his words “the wasteland within grows” seem apt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    “I’m ordinarily no fan of Nietzsche…”

    Far be from me to challenge you in your right to believe anything you like about anyone you like but if you aren’t yet familiar with The Selected Letters of Nietzsche you may want to give them a look, if only to square accounts with his detractors. Perhaps you will find something in the man to admire and like after all.

    from Wiki:

    “all the skeptics, in short, about Nietzsche, as well as all his enemies, will be interested to see from these letters that there was another Nietzsche, a Nietzsche who was a good friend, a devoted son, an affectionate brother, and a generous enemy, such as the literary history of the world with its quarrels and jealousies has not had the good luck to encounter for a long time. The friends of Nietzsche—and Nietzsche has many friends in all climes and amongst all races—will be delighted to see their hero in the light of their own wishes and imaginations, while the enemies of Nietzsche—and he still has many and by no means unworthy enemies—will be bound to confess what the Lutheran Pastor Colerus confessed in his Life of the Philosopher Spinoza: “He may have been a man of no strict orthodoxy and an atheist into the bargain, but in the conduct of his life he was wise and good.”

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Selected_Letters_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche
    , @Beckow
    You are right, this is stunning. If I read the poll correctly, over 90% of Democrats with advanced degrees prefer to:

    "....always fight with Russia"
     
    Yes, people simply responded based on what they feel emotionally - a deep, intense dislike of Russia and anything Russian - but for educated 'liberals' to say that they want to 'always' fight with a nuclear power borders on insanity. Presumably they have over 100 IQs and a sense of reality. How does a 'wasteland within grow' without some rational boundaries?

    Recently, a 'progressive' acquaintance of mine went on a hateful rant when I mentioned that earlier this year I saw a performance of a Russian folk ensemble. The words like 'f..ing Russians', 'and worse were uttered.

    When I hear about the deep ethnic and openly racist attitudes in the past, or witch trials, I wonder how did the more educated people behave during those times. Now we can see that it is actually the 'liberal' elite, people who are full of their own righteous goodness, who are in the forefront stirring up the hatred.

    Today they need white, Christian villains, and nobody but the Russians is available in sufficient numbers. I don't believe this is about geo-politics or military spending, those have a momentum of their own. It is also only marginally about Clinton and the elections, it was a new trigger, but the hatred was already there. But how are they ever going to return to sanity after this?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. fnn says:

    In the event this is true, you saw it here first:

    There are reports now circulating that a special forces group of 2200 marines have landed and invaded the CIA Headquarters. They supposedly have landed in the classic tilt-rotary helicopters. I have been working on this to actually confirm the veracity of this claim but not a single photo has even surfaced. The spin is they are there to prevent a CIA coup against Trump. That seems to be a bit far-fetched. If it is even true, it may be more to secure evidence for the prosecution of the Clintons.

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/report-of-marines-invading-cia-headquarters/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @Flavius
    “… having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world, and an asset to our country, not a liability.”

    It is nearly impossible for someone in good faith to consider this proposition and not agree with it. The convolutions of thought necessary to prop up disagreement should properly qualify one as courting insanity. It appears our politics have led many to that precipice. I believe even our newly conjoined war monger class of left and right wing politicians and bureaucrats in Washington would find some way to agree with it, if only to satisfy their appetites for hypocrisy. I'm ordinarily no fan of Nietzsche, himself having wobbled his way to an asylum, but his words "the wasteland within grows" seem apt.

    “I’m ordinarily no fan of Nietzsche…”

    Far be from me to challenge you in your right to believe anything you like about anyone you like but if you aren’t yet familiar with The Selected Letters of Nietzsche you may want to give them a look, if only to square accounts with his detractors. Perhaps you will find something in the man to admire and like after all.

    from Wiki:

    “all the skeptics, in short, about Nietzsche, as well as all his enemies, will be interested to see from these letters that there was another Nietzsche, a Nietzsche who was a good friend, a devoted son, an affectionate brother, and a generous enemy, such as the literary history of the world with its quarrels and jealousies has not had the good luck to encounter for a long time. The friends of Nietzsche—and Nietzsche has many friends in all climes and amongst all races—will be delighted to see their hero in the light of their own wishes and imaginations, while the enemies of Nietzsche—and he still has many and by no means unworthy enemies—will be bound to confess what the Lutheran Pastor Colerus confessed in his Life of the Philosopher Spinoza: “He may have been a man of no strict orthodoxy and an atheist into the bargain, but in the conduct of his life he was wise and good.”

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Selected_Letters_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Beckow says:
    @Flavius
    “… having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world, and an asset to our country, not a liability.”

    It is nearly impossible for someone in good faith to consider this proposition and not agree with it. The convolutions of thought necessary to prop up disagreement should properly qualify one as courting insanity. It appears our politics have led many to that precipice. I believe even our newly conjoined war monger class of left and right wing politicians and bureaucrats in Washington would find some way to agree with it, if only to satisfy their appetites for hypocrisy. I'm ordinarily no fan of Nietzsche, himself having wobbled his way to an asylum, but his words "the wasteland within grows" seem apt.

    You are right, this is stunning. If I read the poll correctly, over 90% of Democrats with advanced degrees prefer to:

    “….always fight with Russia”

    Yes, people simply responded based on what they feel emotionally – a deep, intense dislike of Russia and anything Russian – but for educated ‘liberals’ to say that they want to ‘always’ fight with a nuclear power borders on insanity. Presumably they have over 100 IQs and a sense of reality. How does a ‘wasteland within grow’ without some rational boundaries?

    Recently, a ‘progressive’ acquaintance of mine went on a hateful rant when I mentioned that earlier this year I saw a performance of a Russian folk ensemble. The words like ‘f..ing Russians’, ‘and worse were uttered.

    When I hear about the deep ethnic and openly racist attitudes in the past, or witch trials, I wonder how did the more educated people behave during those times. Now we can see that it is actually the ‘liberal’ elite, people who are full of their own righteous goodness, who are in the forefront stirring up the hatred.

    Today they need white, Christian villains, and nobody but the Russians is available in sufficient numbers. I don’t believe this is about geo-politics or military spending, those have a momentum of their own. It is also only marginally about Clinton and the elections, it was a new trigger, but the hatred was already there. But how are they ever going to return to sanity after this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    If I read the poll correctly, over 90% of Democrats with advanced degrees prefer to...
     
    Not quite, that's a separate Gallup poll, about Putin's favorability. Less than 10% of college educated Democrats view Putin positively.

    Rasmussen, unfortunately, doesn't give detailed demographic data.
    , @Parbes
    "But how are they ever going to return to sanity after this?"

    Most of "them" as individuals are unlikely to ever return, on their own, to sanity in their political worldview and attitudes, which are based on deeply entrenched mental conditioning and brainwashing. The best - and maybe even the only - hope for a return to overall sanity, is for this class of psychopathically hateful, pig-ignorant, arrogantly self-righteous American/Western hypocrites to be neutralized, one way or another.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Don't miss the latest new batch of anti-Russian propaganda in Hollywood.

    http://ynuk.tv/2017/11/17/red-sparrow-movie-trailer-march-2-thriller/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Sean says:

    The US is number one and Russia is not, Russia is far away and hence is not dangerous to America, but what the US did on Russia’s borders has destroyed any chance of Russia dropping their guard again. Still the Russians should keep their clumsy secret service from Polonium and internet campaigns, because they leave a trail like an elephant in six feet of snow,

    The US should be worrying about China which is hollowing out America’s productive capacity.Russia should also worry more about China. Chinese can infiltrate and China will inevitably overtake Russia in potential power. Supposing it does and then (maybe while Russia was engaged in the West) grabbed Vladivostok, what could Russia do? If there was only Russia and America they could only be enemies, but China is also a player and multi polar systems are inherently unstable. Russia will have to be overtaken by China before America trusts the Kremlin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Frankly Russia is already overtaken by China in most categories of national power.

    What's taking China taking Vladivostok while Rusia is "engaged" in the West? Erm... nukes?

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-china-no-war/

    You might ask whether Russia will risk hundreds of its cities being wiped out for Vladivostok. But then you'd also have to ask whether China wants to risk thousands of its cities being wiped out for, well, Vladivostok.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    China is run by rational actors uninterested in causing pointless nuclear war for Vladivostok. There are literally a dozen other places more worth invading. In years and years of being around Chinese irredentism, I have never heard of any interest in Vladivostok.

    Taiwan isn't even being invaded, let alone starting a war with Russia and destroying OBOR and...its just all so senseless.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Beckow
    You are right, this is stunning. If I read the poll correctly, over 90% of Democrats with advanced degrees prefer to:

    "....always fight with Russia"
     
    Yes, people simply responded based on what they feel emotionally - a deep, intense dislike of Russia and anything Russian - but for educated 'liberals' to say that they want to 'always' fight with a nuclear power borders on insanity. Presumably they have over 100 IQs and a sense of reality. How does a 'wasteland within grow' without some rational boundaries?

    Recently, a 'progressive' acquaintance of mine went on a hateful rant when I mentioned that earlier this year I saw a performance of a Russian folk ensemble. The words like 'f..ing Russians', 'and worse were uttered.

    When I hear about the deep ethnic and openly racist attitudes in the past, or witch trials, I wonder how did the more educated people behave during those times. Now we can see that it is actually the 'liberal' elite, people who are full of their own righteous goodness, who are in the forefront stirring up the hatred.

    Today they need white, Christian villains, and nobody but the Russians is available in sufficient numbers. I don't believe this is about geo-politics or military spending, those have a momentum of their own. It is also only marginally about Clinton and the elections, it was a new trigger, but the hatred was already there. But how are they ever going to return to sanity after this?

    If I read the poll correctly, over 90% of Democrats with advanced degrees prefer to…

    Not quite, that’s a separate Gallup poll, about Putin’s favorability. Less than 10% of college educated Democrats view Putin positively.

    Rasmussen, unfortunately, doesn’t give detailed demographic data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Thanks. I checked again and it looks like 41% of Democrats said that 'always fighting with Russia' is preferable. I will not try to extrapolate from Putin's poll, although that one implies that anti-Putin views are highest among college educated. I am not sure that would translate into 'wanting to fight with Russia'. I am generally skeptical of the weird meme 'I like Russia, but hate Putler', it seems counter-intuitive, but cognitive dissonance is something liberals do quite well.

    Even 41% is pretty scary. This looks like an outbreak of mass psychosis. I think it has been building up for a long time. I also don't think there is an easy way back - not for this generation. In general, when someone hates you, as the liberals seem to be admitting about their attitude toward Putler's Russia, any compromise, accommodation or discussion is pointless. They will take any concessions as weakness, celebrate it, and continue hating. So the next few decades will be pretty precarious for all of us...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Sean
    The US is number one and Russia is not, Russia is far away and hence is not dangerous to America, but what the US did on Russia's borders has destroyed any chance of Russia dropping their guard again. Still the Russians should keep their clumsy secret service from Polonium and internet campaigns, because they leave a trail like an elephant in six feet of snow,

    The US should be worrying about China which is hollowing out America's productive capacity.Russia should also worry more about China. Chinese can infiltrate and China will inevitably overtake Russia in potential power. Supposing it does and then (maybe while Russia was engaged in the West) grabbed Vladivostok, what could Russia do? If there was only Russia and America they could only be enemies, but China is also a player and multi polar systems are inherently unstable. Russia will have to be overtaken by China before America trusts the Kremlin.

    Frankly Russia is already overtaken by China in most categories of national power.

    What’s taking China taking Vladivostok while Rusia is “engaged” in the West? Erm… nukes?

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-china-no-war/

    You might ask whether Russia will risk hundreds of its cities being wiped out for Vladivostok. But then you’d also have to ask whether China wants to risk thousands of its cities being wiped out for, well, Vladivostok.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    It's the 1950s all over again, but with two things reversed:

    1) China is the dominant partner this time vis-à-vis Russia.

    2) The USA is the revolutionary power.

    And both of these of things have arguably been true for the past decade and a half, at the very least.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Beckow says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    If I read the poll correctly, over 90% of Democrats with advanced degrees prefer to...
     
    Not quite, that's a separate Gallup poll, about Putin's favorability. Less than 10% of college educated Democrats view Putin positively.

    Rasmussen, unfortunately, doesn't give detailed demographic data.

    Thanks. I checked again and it looks like 41% of Democrats said that ‘always fighting with Russia‘ is preferable. I will not try to extrapolate from Putin’s poll, although that one implies that anti-Putin views are highest among college educated. I am not sure that would translate into ‘wanting to fight with Russia’. I am generally skeptical of the weird meme ‘I like Russia, but hate Putler‘, it seems counter-intuitive, but cognitive dissonance is something liberals do quite well.

    Even 41% is pretty scary. This looks like an outbreak of mass psychosis. I think it has been building up for a long time. I also don’t think there is an easy way back – not for this generation. In general, when someone hates you, as the liberals seem to be admitting about their attitude toward Putler’s Russia, any compromise, accommodation or discussion is pointless. They will take any concessions as weakness, celebrate it, and continue hating. So the next few decades will be pretty precarious for all of us…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    This looks like an outbreak of mass psychosis.
     
    Frankly almost everything about life in POZlandia feels like mass psychosis, but amazingly things continue to mostly run. Its amazing, for example, that something between a third or half of the country seems to seriously believe that Russia actually hijacked the election somehow.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Sorta off-topic but not really: perhaps we should stop saying "college-educated", because that sounds like a positive thing. It's obviously often NOT something to be proud of (yes, I know, "not something of which one should be proud" ;)

    I'd write "people with college degrees" or "people who graduated from college."
    , @LondonBob
    It is the same with the left and Brexit, just totally irrational incoherent rage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. neutral says:

    Does anyone know what the racial composition of the Democrats are these days? I am assuming they are already majority non white, that being the case this means that the conflict with Russia is increasingly going to take on a racial dimension, the new cold war will be more of race war than any kind of ideological struggle between rivals. I can already see the day when the demand is made on Russia is to include black politicians in its cabinet. And I am not joking about this, many will laugh at the notion of a global BLM that will dominate geopolitics, but with Sailers “most important graph in the world” and the radical hysteria that has consumed the USA, this is what I see happening.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Does anyone know what the racial composition of the Democrats are these days? I am assuming they are already majority non white, that being the case this means that the conflict with Russia is increasingly going to take on a racial dimension,
     
    My impression is that non-white Democrats know little and care little about Russia. The anti-Russian stuff from Democrats tends to come from whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Parbes says:
    @Beckow
    You are right, this is stunning. If I read the poll correctly, over 90% of Democrats with advanced degrees prefer to:

    "....always fight with Russia"
     
    Yes, people simply responded based on what they feel emotionally - a deep, intense dislike of Russia and anything Russian - but for educated 'liberals' to say that they want to 'always' fight with a nuclear power borders on insanity. Presumably they have over 100 IQs and a sense of reality. How does a 'wasteland within grow' without some rational boundaries?

    Recently, a 'progressive' acquaintance of mine went on a hateful rant when I mentioned that earlier this year I saw a performance of a Russian folk ensemble. The words like 'f..ing Russians', 'and worse were uttered.

    When I hear about the deep ethnic and openly racist attitudes in the past, or witch trials, I wonder how did the more educated people behave during those times. Now we can see that it is actually the 'liberal' elite, people who are full of their own righteous goodness, who are in the forefront stirring up the hatred.

    Today they need white, Christian villains, and nobody but the Russians is available in sufficient numbers. I don't believe this is about geo-politics or military spending, those have a momentum of their own. It is also only marginally about Clinton and the elections, it was a new trigger, but the hatred was already there. But how are they ever going to return to sanity after this?

    “But how are they ever going to return to sanity after this?”

    Most of “them” as individuals are unlikely to ever return, on their own, to sanity in their political worldview and attitudes, which are based on deeply entrenched mental conditioning and brainwashing. The best – and maybe even the only – hope for a return to overall sanity, is for this class of psychopathically hateful, pig-ignorant, arrogantly self-righteous American/Western hypocrites to be neutralized, one way or another.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Judging from reading many comments at YouTube and similar places, a lot of socially conservative Americans like the look of Russian women, cute kids, bad-ass troops, religious festivals and various sorts of Kalashnikov weaponry. I think an underground charm offensive has won many over behind the mainstream media’s backs.

    University educated Democratic voters tend to be much happier with the “respectable” media and so they likely spend less time looking at this sort of alternative stuff. It’s remarkable how few seem to have never watched a press conference or read a transcript straight from the Russian horse’s mouth. They really seem to prefer having someone else — a trained expert — handle this dangerous stuff for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    Whatever his faults, I can’t help giving Putin some respect every time I hear him speak. Compared to almost all Western politicians, he is extraordinarily thoughtful, articulate, consistent, and knowledgeable. Of course, this might just be a sign of how low political discourse has sunk in the West.

    When dealing with anti-Putin rants of various Westerners that I encounter, I usually just ask some simple questions without giving my own opinion unless it is asked for. Have you ever listened to Putin, Medvedev, or Lavrov speak? Do you even know who are Dmitry Medvedev and Sergey Lavrov? Do you speak Russian? Have you ever visited Russia? Do you have friends or family who live in Russia?
    , @The Big Red Scary
    My mother has always adored little Russian school girls in aprons and with braids and big bows, pictures of which she saw in National Geographic decades ago, even before she had her very own half-Russian granddaughter. There are a lot of things in everyday Russian culture that normal Westerners would find quite charming if they encountered them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. nebulafox says:
    @Jason Liu
    It's not about realism, young people are just more into the idealistic "world peace" schtick.

    As it stands now communism is more likely to erupt in the west than anywhere else, so maybe Marx was right in that regard.

    I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. I think a world with multiple great powers in it is more likely to be peaceful than a world with merely one. You’re hedging your bets: if something goes infectious or buggy with one power, the others can check it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. nebulafox says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Frankly Russia is already overtaken by China in most categories of national power.

    What's taking China taking Vladivostok while Rusia is "engaged" in the West? Erm... nukes?

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-china-no-war/

    You might ask whether Russia will risk hundreds of its cities being wiped out for Vladivostok. But then you'd also have to ask whether China wants to risk thousands of its cities being wiped out for, well, Vladivostok.

    It’s the 1950s all over again, but with two things reversed:

    1) China is the dominant partner this time vis-à-vis Russia.

    2) The USA is the revolutionary power.

    And both of these of things have arguably been true for the past decade and a half, at the very least.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Sean
    The US is number one and Russia is not, Russia is far away and hence is not dangerous to America, but what the US did on Russia's borders has destroyed any chance of Russia dropping their guard again. Still the Russians should keep their clumsy secret service from Polonium and internet campaigns, because they leave a trail like an elephant in six feet of snow,

    The US should be worrying about China which is hollowing out America's productive capacity.Russia should also worry more about China. Chinese can infiltrate and China will inevitably overtake Russia in potential power. Supposing it does and then (maybe while Russia was engaged in the West) grabbed Vladivostok, what could Russia do? If there was only Russia and America they could only be enemies, but China is also a player and multi polar systems are inherently unstable. Russia will have to be overtaken by China before America trusts the Kremlin.

    China is run by rational actors uninterested in causing pointless nuclear war for Vladivostok. There are literally a dozen other places more worth invading. In years and years of being around Chinese irredentism, I have never heard of any interest in Vladivostok.

    Taiwan isn’t even being invaded, let alone starting a war with Russia and destroying OBOR and…its just all so senseless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty
    Most revolutions in history were due to national humiliation, China has unfinished business. In 1955 China attacked and took Yijiangshan Island and maybe was deterred by nuclear weapons from invading Taiwan. So China is quite capable of conventional gambits against nuclear-backed powers. Crucially, China did not have any nukes of its own back then. It does now.

    In the nineties. China threatened to invade Taiwan if it declared independence and when the US threatened to use nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan, China responded by saying it would nuke mainland America if the US used nukes on China. Taiwan has not been invaded only because it dares not declare independence.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Manchuria#/media/File:Manchuria.png
    China could take the Russian far east by just driving to the sea. and Vladivostok. A future motive could be to punish Russia for allying with the US (just as Russia punished Ukraine for allying with the West).

    China gave Pakistan the nuclear bomb and actual parts for an ICBM, and they also (clandestinely) gave them to North Korea in order to get concessions from Trump on trade, and it worked like a dream. Its risky to give Kims nukes, but China isn't scared to.

    Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to another country's nuclear attack. If nukes were a deterrent to conventional attack, one would expect nuclear powers to economise on conventional weapons, but they don't.

    , @anonymous coward

    In years and years of being around Chinese irredentism, I have never heard of any interest in Vladivostok.
     
    Well, for one -- the Chinese never lived around Vladivostok and never controlled the area.

    It was claimed by the Manchu, but the Manchu were mortal enemies of the Han Chinese and are now completely assimilated.

    The word "irredentism" here is plain wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Beckow
    Thanks. I checked again and it looks like 41% of Democrats said that 'always fighting with Russia' is preferable. I will not try to extrapolate from Putin's poll, although that one implies that anti-Putin views are highest among college educated. I am not sure that would translate into 'wanting to fight with Russia'. I am generally skeptical of the weird meme 'I like Russia, but hate Putler', it seems counter-intuitive, but cognitive dissonance is something liberals do quite well.

    Even 41% is pretty scary. This looks like an outbreak of mass psychosis. I think it has been building up for a long time. I also don't think there is an easy way back - not for this generation. In general, when someone hates you, as the liberals seem to be admitting about their attitude toward Putler's Russia, any compromise, accommodation or discussion is pointless. They will take any concessions as weakness, celebrate it, and continue hating. So the next few decades will be pretty precarious for all of us...

    This looks like an outbreak of mass psychosis.

    Frankly almost everything about life in POZlandia feels like mass psychosis, but amazingly things continue to mostly run. Its amazing, for example, that something between a third or half of the country seems to seriously believe that Russia actually hijacked the election somehow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Beckow
    You are right, this is stunning. If I read the poll correctly, over 90% of Democrats with advanced degrees prefer to:

    "....always fight with Russia"
     
    Yes, people simply responded based on what they feel emotionally - a deep, intense dislike of Russia and anything Russian - but for educated 'liberals' to say that they want to 'always' fight with a nuclear power borders on insanity. Presumably they have over 100 IQs and a sense of reality. How does a 'wasteland within grow' without some rational boundaries?

    Recently, a 'progressive' acquaintance of mine went on a hateful rant when I mentioned that earlier this year I saw a performance of a Russian folk ensemble. The words like 'f..ing Russians', 'and worse were uttered.

    When I hear about the deep ethnic and openly racist attitudes in the past, or witch trials, I wonder how did the more educated people behave during those times. Now we can see that it is actually the 'liberal' elite, people who are full of their own righteous goodness, who are in the forefront stirring up the hatred.

    Today they need white, Christian villains, and nobody but the Russians is available in sufficient numbers. I don't believe this is about geo-politics or military spending, those have a momentum of their own. It is also only marginally about Clinton and the elections, it was a new trigger, but the hatred was already there. But how are they ever going to return to sanity after this?

    Don’t miss the latest new batch of anti-Russian propaganda in Hollywood.

    http://ynuk.tv/2017/11/17/red-sparrow-movie-trailer-march-2-thriller/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    I can't wait... these Russia-KGB stories have the huge advantage that anything goes, there are no constraints, the canvas is truly there to spin it, any stereotype or nonsense.

    It is mass psychosis. Societies can function fairly well while suffering from a mass psychosis, e.g. some of the religious beliefs, or faith in the lottery economy. The truth is that societies function because they don't have too many alternatives, the damn thing goes on and on, no matter how much nonsense accumulates. With sufficient resources societies can be quite resilient.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Beckow says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Don't miss the latest new batch of anti-Russian propaganda in Hollywood.

    http://ynuk.tv/2017/11/17/red-sparrow-movie-trailer-march-2-thriller/

    I can’t wait… these Russia-KGB stories have the huge advantage that anything goes, there are no constraints, the canvas is truly there to spin it, any stereotype or nonsense.

    It is mass psychosis. Societies can function fairly well while suffering from a mass psychosis, e.g. some of the religious beliefs, or faith in the lottery economy. The truth is that societies function because they don’t have too many alternatives, the damn thing goes on and on, no matter how much nonsense accumulates. With sufficient resources societies can be quite resilient.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Twinkie says:

    Ever since I started reading Mr. Karlin, my view toward Russia has softened a bit… that and the relentless mainstream media obsession with it as the Great Satan.

    As for Putin, hey, he is a Judoka. He can’t be all that bad. He can probably hip-toss and strangle just about any other country’s leader… except Mongolia’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Cagey Beast
    Judging from reading many comments at YouTube and similar places, a lot of socially conservative Americans like the look of Russian women, cute kids, bad-ass troops, religious festivals and various sorts of Kalashnikov weaponry. I think an underground charm offensive has won many over behind the mainstream media's backs.

    University educated Democratic voters tend to be much happier with the "respectable" media and so they likely spend less time looking at this sort of alternative stuff. It's remarkable how few seem to have never watched a press conference or read a transcript straight from the Russian horse's mouth. They really seem to prefer having someone else -- a trained expert -- handle this dangerous stuff for them.

    Whatever his faults, I can’t help giving Putin some respect every time I hear him speak. Compared to almost all Western politicians, he is extraordinarily thoughtful, articulate, consistent, and knowledgeable. Of course, this might just be a sign of how low political discourse has sunk in the West.

    When dealing with anti-Putin rants of various Westerners that I encounter, I usually just ask some simple questions without giving my own opinion unless it is asked for. Have you ever listened to Putin, Medvedev, or Lavrov speak? Do you even know who are Dmitry Medvedev and Sergey Lavrov? Do you speak Russian? Have you ever visited Russia? Do you have friends or family who live in Russia?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Cagey Beast
    Judging from reading many comments at YouTube and similar places, a lot of socially conservative Americans like the look of Russian women, cute kids, bad-ass troops, religious festivals and various sorts of Kalashnikov weaponry. I think an underground charm offensive has won many over behind the mainstream media's backs.

    University educated Democratic voters tend to be much happier with the "respectable" media and so they likely spend less time looking at this sort of alternative stuff. It's remarkable how few seem to have never watched a press conference or read a transcript straight from the Russian horse's mouth. They really seem to prefer having someone else -- a trained expert -- handle this dangerous stuff for them.

    My mother has always adored little Russian school girls in aprons and with braids and big bows, pictures of which she saw in National Geographic decades ago, even before she had her very own half-Russian granddaughter. There are a lot of things in everyday Russian culture that normal Westerners would find quite charming if they encountered them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. AP says:

    This implies that opinion towards Russia decreases with age amongst the younger non-Republican population. But that doesn’t seem to tally with other polls I’ve seen. Or common sense.

    Why? This group is very pro-gay and Russia is perceived as persecuting gays.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    "Think of the gays! What a terrible loss it would be if they were not allowed to parade!"
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Greater Russophile (or less Russophobe) sentiment amongst younger American cohorts has been present for as long as I have been tracking them.

    Why?

    Well, isn't it obvious. Boomers grew up in a highly anti-Communist environment, as lampooned in popular culture even back then (Dr. Strangelove). Moreover, an environment where "Communism" and "Russia" were conflated (unlike its "captive nations").

    Millennials don't have that anti-Communism baggage, and are in fact pretty leftist themselves (amongst them preference for capitalism vs. socialism is evenly balanced, whereas amongst boomers its more like 5:1 in favor of the former).

    Of course, it's possible that we will begin to see a reversal of this pattern, as Russia's public image continues to transform from the "Big Red Scary" (heh) to the Putlerreich.

    Still, I wouldn't extrapolate too much from one poll, especially one that doesn't give detailed demographic data.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Fair reasoning.

    Minor semantic quibble: can we stop using the Left's propaganda words, like "gay"? How about simply writing the neutral, accurate "homosexual"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. AP says:
    @neutral
    Does anyone know what the racial composition of the Democrats are these days? I am assuming they are already majority non white, that being the case this means that the conflict with Russia is increasingly going to take on a racial dimension, the new cold war will be more of race war than any kind of ideological struggle between rivals. I can already see the day when the demand is made on Russia is to include black politicians in its cabinet. And I am not joking about this, many will laugh at the notion of a global BLM that will dominate geopolitics, but with Sailers "most important graph in the world" and the radical hysteria that has consumed the USA, this is what I see happening.

    Does anyone know what the racial composition of the Democrats are these days? I am assuming they are already majority non white, that being the case this means that the conflict with Russia is increasingly going to take on a racial dimension,

    My impression is that non-white Democrats know little and care little about Russia. The anti-Russian stuff from Democrats tends to come from whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Re: African Americans on Russia

    Tyrell Starr being a prime example of an affirmative action Russia hater.

    The not so Russia friendly Shaun Walker called Starr's recent WaPo piece one of the dumbest commentaries.

    Not that the likes of Malcolm Nance, Barack Obama and Maxine Waters are much better, if at all.

    In contrast, the very intelligent and well informed Gerald Horne, gets no airtime from establishment huckster Don Lemon, among others in US mass media.

    Regardless of color, those Americans who overwhelmingly rely on US mass media, (as their source of Russia info.), will be extremely ignorant on Russia related matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @AP

    This implies that opinion towards Russia decreases with age amongst the younger non-Republican population. But that doesn’t seem to tally with other polls I’ve seen. Or common sense.
     
    Why? This group is very pro-gay and Russia is perceived as persecuting gays.

    “Think of the gays! What a terrible loss it would be if they were not allowed to parade!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @AP

    This implies that opinion towards Russia decreases with age amongst the younger non-Republican population. But that doesn’t seem to tally with other polls I’ve seen. Or common sense.
     
    Why? This group is very pro-gay and Russia is perceived as persecuting gays.

    Greater Russophile (or less Russophobe) sentiment amongst younger American cohorts has been present for as long as I have been tracking them.

    Why?

    Well, isn’t it obvious. Boomers grew up in a highly anti-Communist environment, as lampooned in popular culture even back then (Dr. Strangelove). Moreover, an environment where “Communism” and “Russia” were conflated (unlike its “captive nations”).

    Millennials don’t have that anti-Communism baggage, and are in fact pretty leftist themselves (amongst them preference for capitalism vs. socialism is evenly balanced, whereas amongst boomers its more like 5:1 in favor of the former).

    Of course, it’s possible that we will begin to see a reversal of this pattern, as Russia’s public image continues to transform from the “Big Red Scary” (heh) to the Putlerreich.

    Still, I wouldn’t extrapolate too much from one poll, especially one that doesn’t give detailed demographic data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    Yeah. I first used this handle on other sites where some people hadn’t realized yet that Russia is no longer communist. At some point, they’ll wise up and I’ll have to find a new name.

    I’ve been mulling over “The Great White Gomophobe”.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Anatoly Karlin
    Greater Russophile (or less Russophobe) sentiment amongst younger American cohorts has been present for as long as I have been tracking them.

    Why?

    Well, isn't it obvious. Boomers grew up in a highly anti-Communist environment, as lampooned in popular culture even back then (Dr. Strangelove). Moreover, an environment where "Communism" and "Russia" were conflated (unlike its "captive nations").

    Millennials don't have that anti-Communism baggage, and are in fact pretty leftist themselves (amongst them preference for capitalism vs. socialism is evenly balanced, whereas amongst boomers its more like 5:1 in favor of the former).

    Of course, it's possible that we will begin to see a reversal of this pattern, as Russia's public image continues to transform from the "Big Red Scary" (heh) to the Putlerreich.

    Still, I wouldn't extrapolate too much from one poll, especially one that doesn't give detailed demographic data.

    Yeah. I first used this handle on other sites where some people hadn’t realized yet that Russia is no longer communist. At some point, they’ll wise up and I’ll have to find a new name.

    I’ve been mulling over “The Great White Gomophobe”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Beckow
    Thanks. I checked again and it looks like 41% of Democrats said that 'always fighting with Russia' is preferable. I will not try to extrapolate from Putin's poll, although that one implies that anti-Putin views are highest among college educated. I am not sure that would translate into 'wanting to fight with Russia'. I am generally skeptical of the weird meme 'I like Russia, but hate Putler', it seems counter-intuitive, but cognitive dissonance is something liberals do quite well.

    Even 41% is pretty scary. This looks like an outbreak of mass psychosis. I think it has been building up for a long time. I also don't think there is an easy way back - not for this generation. In general, when someone hates you, as the liberals seem to be admitting about their attitude toward Putler's Russia, any compromise, accommodation or discussion is pointless. They will take any concessions as weakness, celebrate it, and continue hating. So the next few decades will be pretty precarious for all of us...

    Sorta off-topic but not really: perhaps we should stop saying “college-educated”, because that sounds like a positive thing. It’s obviously often NOT something to be proud of (yes, I know, “not something of which one should be proud” ;)

    I’d write “people with college degrees” or “people who graduated from college.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @AP

    This implies that opinion towards Russia decreases with age amongst the younger non-Republican population. But that doesn’t seem to tally with other polls I’ve seen. Or common sense.
     
    Why? This group is very pro-gay and Russia is perceived as persecuting gays.

    Fair reasoning.

    Minor semantic quibble: can we stop using the Left’s propaganda words, like “gay”? How about simply writing the neutral, accurate “homosexual”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "perhaps we should stop saying “college-educated”

    Are you the SJW thought police? If a person wants to say "college educated", or "people with college degrees" or "people who graduated from college", that is what they will say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Sean says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    China is run by rational actors uninterested in causing pointless nuclear war for Vladivostok. There are literally a dozen other places more worth invading. In years and years of being around Chinese irredentism, I have never heard of any interest in Vladivostok.

    Taiwan isn't even being invaded, let alone starting a war with Russia and destroying OBOR and...its just all so senseless.

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

    Most revolutions in history were due to national humiliation, China has unfinished business. In 1955 China attacked and took Yijiangshan Island and maybe was deterred by nuclear weapons from invading Taiwan. So China is quite capable of conventional gambits against nuclear-backed powers. Crucially, China did not have any nukes of its own back then. It does now.

    In the nineties. China threatened to invade Taiwan if it declared independence and when the US threatened to use nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan, China responded by saying it would nuke mainland America if the US used nukes on China. Taiwan has not been invaded only because it dares not declare independence.
    China could take the Russian far east by just driving to the sea. and Vladivostok. A future motive could be to punish Russia for allying with the US (just as Russia punished Ukraine for allying with the West).

    China gave Pakistan the nuclear bomb and actual parts for an ICBM, and they also (clandestinely) gave them to North Korea in order to get concessions from Trump on trade, and it worked like a dream. Its risky to give Kims nukes, but China isn’t scared to.

    Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to another country’s nuclear attack. If nukes were a deterrent to conventional attack, one would expect nuclear powers to economise on conventional weapons, but they don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The world of the neocon's mind is truly an interesting place.

    But yes, there is no rational reason to self-destruct, and the same risk factor in providing the Kim dynasty with nukes is almost certainly evidence that China did not, especially as NK regularly threatens to nuke Beijing.

    Like I said before, before we see any Chinese adventurism, first we have to see Taiwanese reacquisition. Until then, nothing else at all will ever happen.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Sean
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty
    Most revolutions in history were due to national humiliation, China has unfinished business. In 1955 China attacked and took Yijiangshan Island and maybe was deterred by nuclear weapons from invading Taiwan. So China is quite capable of conventional gambits against nuclear-backed powers. Crucially, China did not have any nukes of its own back then. It does now.

    In the nineties. China threatened to invade Taiwan if it declared independence and when the US threatened to use nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan, China responded by saying it would nuke mainland America if the US used nukes on China. Taiwan has not been invaded only because it dares not declare independence.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Manchuria#/media/File:Manchuria.png
    China could take the Russian far east by just driving to the sea. and Vladivostok. A future motive could be to punish Russia for allying with the US (just as Russia punished Ukraine for allying with the West).

    China gave Pakistan the nuclear bomb and actual parts for an ICBM, and they also (clandestinely) gave them to North Korea in order to get concessions from Trump on trade, and it worked like a dream. Its risky to give Kims nukes, but China isn't scared to.

    Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to another country's nuclear attack. If nukes were a deterrent to conventional attack, one would expect nuclear powers to economise on conventional weapons, but they don't.

    The world of the neocon’s mind is truly an interesting place.

    But yes, there is no rational reason to self-destruct, and the same risk factor in providing the Kim dynasty with nukes is almost certainly evidence that China did not, especially as NK regularly threatens to nuke Beijing.

    Like I said before, before we see any Chinese adventurism, first we have to see Taiwanese reacquisition. Until then, nothing else at all will ever happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It’s even questionable if Pakistan received much help from China. It’s highly unlikely that North Korea received those weapons from it.
    , @Sean
    I certainly was not giving a neocon analysis, Mearsheimer is my guide. Anyway, China already has established over-lordship over Taiwan, through their having made a public (it was reported widely at the time) and implacable threat of conventional military attack if Taiwan declared independence. China wasn't bluffing, the US was. Conventional threats by nuclear powers against other nuclear powers are taken seriously.

    Look at the conventional forces Nato felt necessary when it faced Soviet tank and tube artillery (what they were really scared of). And the Soviets had all those tanks because they thought there could not be a conventional war with Nato, eh? They expected their myriad tanks to be nuked by Nato if they rolled into western Europe! No, nuclear weapons are for deterring nuclear weapons because once you go nuclear you end the conventional fighting phase for good (tactical nuke use would be met with tactical nuke use, and so on). To deter conventional attack by a nuclear armed rival you need strong conventional forces and that is why all nuclear powers have to spend lots of money on strong conventional forces.

    Well, well, North Korea is publicly threatening to nuke China. I didn't know that and must admit it is very convincing evidence--that China has been the organ grinder for a dancing North Korean monkey all along. Eamonn Fingleton predicted that North Korea would be used by the mercantile east Asian powers to override Trumps economic nationalism. Now the economic "rape" of America by China is what Trump said he would put an end to, and he is no sooner in a position to do that than North Korea which previously had only a clunky Mongo A-bomb and short range missile it didn't fit, suddenly made very significant strides in H- bombs (small warhead fitting ones no less) and ICBMs too!

    I don't think for one minute that North Korea will ever be given a rake of ICBMs that could take out the big US cities but for the sake of argument, if Kim devastated the US, do you think America would respond by only nuking North Korea. No, America would hit North Korea and China. If you doubt that consider : if Britain suddenly fired off an all-out nuclear attack on Russia, would Russia only hit Britain in return? With 30 million Russians dead and the country devastated, Russia would hit Britain and America.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Daniel Chieh
    The world of the neocon's mind is truly an interesting place.

    But yes, there is no rational reason to self-destruct, and the same risk factor in providing the Kim dynasty with nukes is almost certainly evidence that China did not, especially as NK regularly threatens to nuke Beijing.

    Like I said before, before we see any Chinese adventurism, first we have to see Taiwanese reacquisition. Until then, nothing else at all will ever happen.

    It’s even questionable if Pakistan received much help from China. It’s highly unlikely that North Korea received those weapons from it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    It's known that Pakistan was given uranium enrichment help by China and actual parts of a Chinese M-II missile. (Prof Jeremy Black's book War and the New Disorder in the 21st Century: Compact, Page 102. Call me crazy, call me a sick nut , but I think China has given North Korea something similar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Sean says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    The world of the neocon's mind is truly an interesting place.

    But yes, there is no rational reason to self-destruct, and the same risk factor in providing the Kim dynasty with nukes is almost certainly evidence that China did not, especially as NK regularly threatens to nuke Beijing.

    Like I said before, before we see any Chinese adventurism, first we have to see Taiwanese reacquisition. Until then, nothing else at all will ever happen.

    I certainly was not giving a neocon analysis, Mearsheimer is my guide. Anyway, China already has established over-lordship over Taiwan, through their having made a public (it was reported widely at the time) and implacable threat of conventional military attack if Taiwan declared independence. China wasn’t bluffing, the US was. Conventional threats by nuclear powers against other nuclear powers are taken seriously.

    Look at the conventional forces Nato felt necessary when it faced Soviet tank and tube artillery (what they were really scared of). And the Soviets had all those tanks because they thought there could not be a conventional war with Nato, eh? They expected their myriad tanks to be nuked by Nato if they rolled into western Europe! No, nuclear weapons are for deterring nuclear weapons because once you go nuclear you end the conventional fighting phase for good (tactical nuke use would be met with tactical nuke use, and so on). To deter conventional attack by a nuclear armed rival you need strong conventional forces and that is why all nuclear powers have to spend lots of money on strong conventional forces.

    Well, well, North Korea is publicly threatening to nuke China. I didn’t know that and must admit it is very convincing evidence–that China has been the organ grinder for a dancing North Korean monkey all along. Eamonn Fingleton predicted that North Korea would be used by the mercantile east Asian powers to override Trumps economic nationalism. Now the economic “rape” of America by China is what Trump said he would put an end to, and he is no sooner in a position to do that than North Korea which previously had only a clunky Mongo A-bomb and short range missile it didn’t fit, suddenly made very significant strides in H- bombs (small warhead fitting ones no less) and ICBMs too!

    I don’t think for one minute that North Korea will ever be given a rake of ICBMs that could take out the big US cities but for the sake of argument, if Kim devastated the US, do you think America would respond by only nuking North Korea. No, America would hit North Korea and China. If you doubt that consider : if Britain suddenly fired off an all-out nuclear attack on Russia, would Russia only hit Britain in return? With 30 million Russians dead and the country devastated, Russia would hit Britain and America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    if Britain suddenly fired off an all-out nuclear attack on Russia, would Russia only hit Britain in return? With 30 million Russians dead and the country devastated, Russia would hit Britain and America.
     
    Knowing some Russians, I'm not sure if their default reaction to every military disaster to end the world. Perhaps Mr. Karlin can help us with more details of a doomsday fetish among the Rus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Mitleser says:

    Claims =/= overlordship

    To deter conventional attack by a nuclear armed rival you need strong conventional forces and that is why all nuclear powers have to spend lots of money on strong conventional forces.

    They spend money on strong conventional forces primarily for the sake of using them against weaker conventional forces without nuclear weapons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The Warsaw Pact had nukes and was not conventionally weaker than Nato on the ground in Europe. The Soviets had 10:1 in tube artillery and all those tanks, but Nato had all those nukes so why did Nato need strong conventional forces such as tanks ect in West Germany?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Sean says:
    @reiner Tor
    It’s even questionable if Pakistan received much help from China. It’s highly unlikely that North Korea received those weapons from it.

    It’s known that Pakistan was given uranium enrichment help by China and actual parts of a Chinese M-II missile. (Prof Jeremy Black’s book War and the New Disorder in the 21st Century: Compact, Page 102. Call me crazy, call me a sick nut , but I think China has given North Korea something similar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Sean says:
    @Mitleser
    Claims =/= overlordship

    To deter conventional attack by a nuclear armed rival you need strong conventional forces and that is why all nuclear powers have to spend lots of money on strong conventional forces.
     
    They spend money on strong conventional forces primarily for the sake of using them against weaker conventional forces without nuclear weapons.

    The Warsaw Pact had nukes and was not conventionally weaker than Nato on the ground in Europe. The Soviets had 10:1 in tube artillery and all those tanks, but Nato had all those nukes so why did Nato need strong conventional forces such as tanks ect in West Germany?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Preparations for the next war tend to reflect the last war.
    That was one of the mistakes the Soviets made, to many investments into conventional forces that were not really needed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Mitleser says:
    @Sean
    The Warsaw Pact had nukes and was not conventionally weaker than Nato on the ground in Europe. The Soviets had 10:1 in tube artillery and all those tanks, but Nato had all those nukes so why did Nato need strong conventional forces such as tanks ect in West Germany?

    Preparations for the next war tend to reflect the last war.
    That was one of the mistakes the Soviets made, to many investments into conventional forces that were not really needed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Sean
    I certainly was not giving a neocon analysis, Mearsheimer is my guide. Anyway, China already has established over-lordship over Taiwan, through their having made a public (it was reported widely at the time) and implacable threat of conventional military attack if Taiwan declared independence. China wasn't bluffing, the US was. Conventional threats by nuclear powers against other nuclear powers are taken seriously.

    Look at the conventional forces Nato felt necessary when it faced Soviet tank and tube artillery (what they were really scared of). And the Soviets had all those tanks because they thought there could not be a conventional war with Nato, eh? They expected their myriad tanks to be nuked by Nato if they rolled into western Europe! No, nuclear weapons are for deterring nuclear weapons because once you go nuclear you end the conventional fighting phase for good (tactical nuke use would be met with tactical nuke use, and so on). To deter conventional attack by a nuclear armed rival you need strong conventional forces and that is why all nuclear powers have to spend lots of money on strong conventional forces.

    Well, well, North Korea is publicly threatening to nuke China. I didn't know that and must admit it is very convincing evidence--that China has been the organ grinder for a dancing North Korean monkey all along. Eamonn Fingleton predicted that North Korea would be used by the mercantile east Asian powers to override Trumps economic nationalism. Now the economic "rape" of America by China is what Trump said he would put an end to, and he is no sooner in a position to do that than North Korea which previously had only a clunky Mongo A-bomb and short range missile it didn't fit, suddenly made very significant strides in H- bombs (small warhead fitting ones no less) and ICBMs too!

    I don't think for one minute that North Korea will ever be given a rake of ICBMs that could take out the big US cities but for the sake of argument, if Kim devastated the US, do you think America would respond by only nuking North Korea. No, America would hit North Korea and China. If you doubt that consider : if Britain suddenly fired off an all-out nuclear attack on Russia, would Russia only hit Britain in return? With 30 million Russians dead and the country devastated, Russia would hit Britain and America.

    if Britain suddenly fired off an all-out nuclear attack on Russia, would Russia only hit Britain in return? With 30 million Russians dead and the country devastated, Russia would hit Britain and America.

    Knowing some Russians, I’m not sure if their default reaction to every military disaster to end the world. Perhaps Mr. Karlin can help us with more details of a doomsday fetish among the Rus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Britain was basically given strategic nuke missiles by America so that the Soviets would be less confident about a conventional attack.

    Everyone knew America wasn't going to get into a nuclear exchange with the Soviets to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Britain would not have either, but it added a little doubt.

    Anyway, get it into your head that no one is going to start a nuclear war, but that does not mean they won't start an ordinary war. Even in the Wild West with everyone carrying a gun hardly any fights ended with shootings.That is why Wyatt Earp could use his fists to keep order.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Based on recent precedents Maria Zakharova (if she's still alive) will threaten "serious consequences" and things will end at that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Sean says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    if Britain suddenly fired off an all-out nuclear attack on Russia, would Russia only hit Britain in return? With 30 million Russians dead and the country devastated, Russia would hit Britain and America.
     
    Knowing some Russians, I'm not sure if their default reaction to every military disaster to end the world. Perhaps Mr. Karlin can help us with more details of a doomsday fetish among the Rus.

    Britain was basically given strategic nuke missiles by America so that the Soviets would be less confident about a conventional attack.

    Everyone knew America wasn’t going to get into a nuclear exchange with the Soviets to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Britain would not have either, but it added a little doubt.

    Anyway, get it into your head that no one is going to start a nuclear war, but that does not mean they won’t start an ordinary war. Even in the Wild West with everyone carrying a gun hardly any fights ended with shootings.That is why Wyatt Earp could use his fists to keep order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    No one is going to start a war when the gain from the war, win or lose, is less than the less risky gain from peace. That centrally is the largest flaw of your thesis that China would go adventuring toward Siberia; there's no point to putting the immense amount of sunk cost in infrastructure at risk and create hostiles. You also seem to firmly believe that China armed North Korea, which is entirely illogical given the sheer amount of hostility that has been elapsed between the governments, including murder.

    The best world for China at the moment is a stable and consistent accumulation of power, focused primarily on internal domestic stability and efforts at remediating various problems. None of it could be enhanced by starting a massive war to which China could be seen as the aggressor, and "mistakes" caused by inconsistent policy are far less likely in a single-party government with a planning span of at least five to ten years.

    As noted again, pretty much all efforts will be guided at Taiwan. That's a sore spot, regardless of relative power. And the methods by which China is fighting that "battle" is instructive of how they conduct warfare - political and economical to induce brain drain and foreign isolation, rather than militaristic invasion. The last is too provocative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Daniel Chieh

    if Britain suddenly fired off an all-out nuclear attack on Russia, would Russia only hit Britain in return? With 30 million Russians dead and the country devastated, Russia would hit Britain and America.
     
    Knowing some Russians, I'm not sure if their default reaction to every military disaster to end the world. Perhaps Mr. Karlin can help us with more details of a doomsday fetish among the Rus.

    Based on recent precedents Maria Zakharova (if she’s still alive) will threaten “serious consequences” and things will end at that.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Sean
    Britain was basically given strategic nuke missiles by America so that the Soviets would be less confident about a conventional attack.

    Everyone knew America wasn't going to get into a nuclear exchange with the Soviets to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Britain would not have either, but it added a little doubt.

    Anyway, get it into your head that no one is going to start a nuclear war, but that does not mean they won't start an ordinary war. Even in the Wild West with everyone carrying a gun hardly any fights ended with shootings.That is why Wyatt Earp could use his fists to keep order.

    No one is going to start a war when the gain from the war, win or lose, is less than the less risky gain from peace. That centrally is the largest flaw of your thesis that China would go adventuring toward Siberia; there’s no point to putting the immense amount of sunk cost in infrastructure at risk and create hostiles. You also seem to firmly believe that China armed North Korea, which is entirely illogical given the sheer amount of hostility that has been elapsed between the governments, including murder.

    The best world for China at the moment is a stable and consistent accumulation of power, focused primarily on internal domestic stability and efforts at remediating various problems. None of it could be enhanced by starting a massive war to which China could be seen as the aggressor, and “mistakes” caused by inconsistent policy are far less likely in a single-party government with a planning span of at least five to ten years.

    As noted again, pretty much all efforts will be guided at Taiwan. That’s a sore spot, regardless of relative power. And the methods by which China is fighting that “battle” is instructive of how they conduct warfare – political and economical to induce brain drain and foreign isolation, rather than militaristic invasion. The last is too provocative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Agreed - China has nothing to gain from an aggressive war. She has no imperial reputation to protect either as world’s policeman. If she just keeps doing what she’s doing, she’ll be fine while other nations tire themselves out by jumping up and down.

    Something tells me there is going to be a hidden price for all this materialism, but that doesn’t mean she’s jumped the shark yet. So full steam ahead for the time being.

    Peace.
    , @Sean
    I agree Siberia would be too difficult. But if for some reason China wanted to clip Russia's wings (and John Mearshemer suggests it is inevitable they will) a temptingly easy advance would be to drive across land to the Sea of Okhotsk, and stop after capturing Vladivostok.

    Yes China does not want to start a war, but it will inevitably come into conflict with, or Finlandise, all countries on its borders. Russia will not want to fight America's battles, but that geopolitical fate is one that goes with the territory.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. LondonBob says:
    @Beckow
    Thanks. I checked again and it looks like 41% of Democrats said that 'always fighting with Russia' is preferable. I will not try to extrapolate from Putin's poll, although that one implies that anti-Putin views are highest among college educated. I am not sure that would translate into 'wanting to fight with Russia'. I am generally skeptical of the weird meme 'I like Russia, but hate Putler', it seems counter-intuitive, but cognitive dissonance is something liberals do quite well.

    Even 41% is pretty scary. This looks like an outbreak of mass psychosis. I think it has been building up for a long time. I also don't think there is an easy way back - not for this generation. In general, when someone hates you, as the liberals seem to be admitting about their attitude toward Putler's Russia, any compromise, accommodation or discussion is pointless. They will take any concessions as weakness, celebrate it, and continue hating. So the next few decades will be pretty precarious for all of us...

    It is the same with the left and Brexit, just totally irrational incoherent rage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Talha says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    No one is going to start a war when the gain from the war, win or lose, is less than the less risky gain from peace. That centrally is the largest flaw of your thesis that China would go adventuring toward Siberia; there's no point to putting the immense amount of sunk cost in infrastructure at risk and create hostiles. You also seem to firmly believe that China armed North Korea, which is entirely illogical given the sheer amount of hostility that has been elapsed between the governments, including murder.

    The best world for China at the moment is a stable and consistent accumulation of power, focused primarily on internal domestic stability and efforts at remediating various problems. None of it could be enhanced by starting a massive war to which China could be seen as the aggressor, and "mistakes" caused by inconsistent policy are far less likely in a single-party government with a planning span of at least five to ten years.

    As noted again, pretty much all efforts will be guided at Taiwan. That's a sore spot, regardless of relative power. And the methods by which China is fighting that "battle" is instructive of how they conduct warfare - political and economical to induce brain drain and foreign isolation, rather than militaristic invasion. The last is too provocative.

    Agreed – China has nothing to gain from an aggressive war. She has no imperial reputation to protect either as world’s policeman. If she just keeps doing what she’s doing, she’ll be fine while other nations tire themselves out by jumping up and down.

    Something tells me there is going to be a hidden price for all this materialism, but that doesn’t mean she’s jumped the shark yet. So full steam ahead for the time being.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Christianity is on the rapid increase in China. So perhaps the materialism will fade away-- very gradually though! Actually, speaking historically, there may very well be a price to pay, but China will probably emerge considerably better off for it. And don't forget China has paid a pretty stiff price already.

    Heck, I sound like Priss. I should get some sleep.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Fair reasoning.

    Minor semantic quibble: can we stop using the Left's propaganda words, like "gay"? How about simply writing the neutral, accurate "homosexual"?

    “perhaps we should stop saying “college-educated”

    Are you the SJW thought police? If a person wants to say “college educated”, or “people with college degrees” or “people who graduated from college”, that is what they will say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Naturally, I'm sure as a conservative, you support Alexei "Party of Progress and Pussy Riot" Navalny?
    , @Anon
    Are you? You're the one randomly and incorrectly interrupting other peoples' conversations to tell them what to say.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Um, yeah Corvinus, obviously it's voluntary. I'm asking people to voluntarily stop using words that are loaded terms used to smuggle premises into a conversation without debate / analysis.

    Accusing me of being a "social justice warrior" is embarrassingly off-base if you have read any of my numerous comments here over the past few years.

    It is the "thought police" who are happy with us using a positive term, "college-educated", to describe something that is increasingly personally and socially destructive: spending, and usually borrowing, vast sums of money to be indoctrinated and rarely if ever presented with a full range of evidence and viewpoints, over the course of four years that could have been spent engaged in true debate and discourse (and the acquisition of actual marketable skills).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Corvinus
    "perhaps we should stop saying “college-educated”

    Are you the SJW thought police? If a person wants to say "college educated", or "people with college degrees" or "people who graduated from college", that is what they will say.

    Naturally, I’m sure as a conservative, you support Alexei “Party of Progress and Pussy Riot” Navalny?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "perhaps we should stop saying “college-educated”

    Are you the SJW thought police? If a person wants to say "college educated", or "people with college degrees" or "people who graduated from college", that is what they will say.

    Are you? You’re the one randomly and incorrectly interrupting other peoples’ conversations to tell them what to say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Agreed - China has nothing to gain from an aggressive war. She has no imperial reputation to protect either as world’s policeman. If she just keeps doing what she’s doing, she’ll be fine while other nations tire themselves out by jumping up and down.

    Something tells me there is going to be a hidden price for all this materialism, but that doesn’t mean she’s jumped the shark yet. So full steam ahead for the time being.

    Peace.

    Christianity is on the rapid increase in China. So perhaps the materialism will fade away– very gradually though! Actually, speaking historically, there may very well be a price to pay, but China will probably emerge considerably better off for it. And don’t forget China has paid a pretty stiff price already.

    Heck, I sound like Priss. I should get some sleep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    That’s a good development, hopefully it turns out well for them and yes, they paid a very heavy price to shift from what they were 60 years ago to what they are today.

    Peace.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    China does not need Abrahamic religions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Talha says:
    @Anon
    Christianity is on the rapid increase in China. So perhaps the materialism will fade away-- very gradually though! Actually, speaking historically, there may very well be a price to pay, but China will probably emerge considerably better off for it. And don't forget China has paid a pretty stiff price already.

    Heck, I sound like Priss. I should get some sleep.

    That’s a good development, hopefully it turns out well for them and yes, they paid a very heavy price to shift from what they were 60 years ago to what they are today.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Anon
    Christianity is on the rapid increase in China. So perhaps the materialism will fade away-- very gradually though! Actually, speaking historically, there may very well be a price to pay, but China will probably emerge considerably better off for it. And don't forget China has paid a pretty stiff price already.

    Heck, I sound like Priss. I should get some sleep.

    China does not need Abrahamic religions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Need or not, they already have two out of the three, and some Chinese seem to be happy with that.
    , @RadicalCenter
    I think all of us, including the USA and Russia and China, could use a lot more instruction in, and adherence to, something like the Ten Commandments and Jesus's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7, and yeah I had to look that up ;) I know I do.

    What none of us needs is the unnecessary and often irrational "doctrine", minutiae, prejudice, and foolishness that also come with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Daniel Chieh
    China is run by rational actors uninterested in causing pointless nuclear war for Vladivostok. There are literally a dozen other places more worth invading. In years and years of being around Chinese irredentism, I have never heard of any interest in Vladivostok.

    Taiwan isn't even being invaded, let alone starting a war with Russia and destroying OBOR and...its just all so senseless.

    In years and years of being around Chinese irredentism, I have never heard of any interest in Vladivostok.

    Well, for one — the Chinese never lived around Vladivostok and never controlled the area.

    It was claimed by the Manchu, but the Manchu were mortal enemies of the Han Chinese and are now completely assimilated.

    The word “irredentism” here is plain wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    Does anyone know what the racial composition of the Democrats are these days? I am assuming they are already majority non white, that being the case this means that the conflict with Russia is increasingly going to take on a racial dimension,
     
    My impression is that non-white Democrats know little and care little about Russia. The anti-Russian stuff from Democrats tends to come from whites.

    Re: African Americans on Russia

    Tyrell Starr being a prime example of an affirmative action Russia hater.

    The not so Russia friendly Shaun Walker called Starr’s recent WaPo piece one of the dumbest commentaries.

    Not that the likes of Malcolm Nance, Barack Obama and Maxine Waters are much better, if at all.

    In contrast, the very intelligent and well informed Gerald Horne, gets no airtime from establishment huckster Don Lemon, among others in US mass media.

    Regardless of color, those Americans who overwhelmingly rely on US mass media, (as their source of Russia info.), will be extremely ignorant on Russia related matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Z-man says:

    It’s the Jooz and their controlled media trying to keep the last two significant Christian nations, white Christian Russia and nominally Christian but less white America from promoting Christian values and working together to have a good ‘Western’ world order. Europe is a lost cause with boatloads of unwashed, criminally inclined negroes are being sent into Europe with no resistance.
    But this will all backfire on the globalist satanic Joo. They must know this but still can’t help themselves, thank God!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Daniel Chieh
    China does not need Abrahamic religions.

    Need or not, they already have two out of the three, and some Chinese seem to be happy with that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Sean says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    No one is going to start a war when the gain from the war, win or lose, is less than the less risky gain from peace. That centrally is the largest flaw of your thesis that China would go adventuring toward Siberia; there's no point to putting the immense amount of sunk cost in infrastructure at risk and create hostiles. You also seem to firmly believe that China armed North Korea, which is entirely illogical given the sheer amount of hostility that has been elapsed between the governments, including murder.

    The best world for China at the moment is a stable and consistent accumulation of power, focused primarily on internal domestic stability and efforts at remediating various problems. None of it could be enhanced by starting a massive war to which China could be seen as the aggressor, and "mistakes" caused by inconsistent policy are far less likely in a single-party government with a planning span of at least five to ten years.

    As noted again, pretty much all efforts will be guided at Taiwan. That's a sore spot, regardless of relative power. And the methods by which China is fighting that "battle" is instructive of how they conduct warfare - political and economical to induce brain drain and foreign isolation, rather than militaristic invasion. The last is too provocative.

    I agree Siberia would be too difficult. But if for some reason China wanted to clip Russia’s wings (and John Mearshemer suggests it is inevitable they will) a temptingly easy advance would be to drive across land to the Sea of Okhotsk, and stop after capturing Vladivostok.

    Yes China does not want to start a war, but it will inevitably come into conflict with, or Finlandise, all countries on its borders. Russia will not want to fight America’s battles, but that geopolitical fate is one that goes with the territory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    I agree Siberia would be too difficult. But if for some reason China wanted to clip Russia’s wings (and John Mearshemer suggests it is inevitable they will) a temptingly easy advance would be to drive across land to the Sea of Okhotsk, and stop after capturing Vladivostok.
     
    Russia has massive strategic nuclear superiority over China, and hence can use tactical nuclear weapons against Chinese forces with impunity. The invading PLA units would quickly become radioactive vapor.

    Even if China achieved nuclear parity with Russia, and successfully seized Vladivostok, such a seizure would make no sense from a cost/benefits perspective.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Corvinus
    "perhaps we should stop saying “college-educated”

    Are you the SJW thought police? If a person wants to say "college educated", or "people with college degrees" or "people who graduated from college", that is what they will say.

    Um, yeah Corvinus, obviously it’s voluntary. I’m asking people to voluntarily stop using words that are loaded terms used to smuggle premises into a conversation without debate / analysis.

    Accusing me of being a “social justice warrior” is embarrassingly off-base if you have read any of my numerous comments here over the past few years.

    It is the “thought police” who are happy with us using a positive term, “college-educated”, to describe something that is increasingly personally and socially destructive: spending, and usually borrowing, vast sums of money to be indoctrinated and rarely if ever presented with a full range of evidence and viewpoints, over the course of four years that could have been spent engaged in true debate and discourse (and the acquisition of actual marketable skills).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Daniel Chieh
    China does not need Abrahamic religions.

    I think all of us, including the USA and Russia and China, could use a lot more instruction in, and adherence to, something like the Ten Commandments and Jesus’s teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7, and yeah I had to look that up ;) I know I do.

    What none of us needs is the unnecessary and often irrational “doctrine”, minutiae, prejudice, and foolishness that also come with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I’m asking people to voluntarily stop using words that are loaded terms used to smuggle premises into a conversation without debate / analysis."

    Using your logic, we can extend those "loaded terms" to include cuck and race realist, assuming that "college educated" is indeed a loaded term.

    "Accusing me of being a “social justice warrior” is embarrassingly off-base if you have read any of my numerous comments here over the past few years."

    You offered the suggestion since you were triggered for people to refrain from employing "college educated" in discourse. If YOU want to stop using that term, go right ahead if it makes you feel better about yourself.

    "It is the “thought police” who are happy with us using a positive term, “college-educated”..."

    You are no different in requesting that people not use this term, which to most people is rather innocuous.

    "to describe something that is increasingly personally and socially destructive"

    Maybe, or maybe not.

    "spending, and usually borrowing, vast sums of money to be indoctrinated and rarely if ever presented with a full range of evidence and viewpoints..."

    No, colleges and universities are generally not groupthink mills that chews and spits out radicals who lack the intellectual rigor to carry on in-depth conversations.

    Now, I will agree that college is becoming way too expensive and that the trades ought to be emphasized.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    I think all of us, including the USA and Russia and China, could use a lot more instruction in, and adherence to, something like the Ten Commandments and Jesus's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7, and yeah I had to look that up ;) I know I do.

    What none of us needs is the unnecessary and often irrational "doctrine", minutiae, prejudice, and foolishness that also come with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

    “I’m asking people to voluntarily stop using words that are loaded terms used to smuggle premises into a conversation without debate / analysis.”

    Using your logic, we can extend those “loaded terms” to include cuck and race realist, assuming that “college educated” is indeed a loaded term.

    “Accusing me of being a “social justice warrior” is embarrassingly off-base if you have read any of my numerous comments here over the past few years.”

    You offered the suggestion since you were triggered for people to refrain from employing “college educated” in discourse. If YOU want to stop using that term, go right ahead if it makes you feel better about yourself.

    “It is the “thought police” who are happy with us using a positive term, “college-educated”…”

    You are no different in requesting that people not use this term, which to most people is rather innocuous.

    “to describe something that is increasingly personally and socially destructive”

    Maybe, or maybe not.

    “spending, and usually borrowing, vast sums of money to be indoctrinated and rarely if ever presented with a full range of evidence and viewpoints…”

    No, colleges and universities are generally not groupthink mills that chews and spits out radicals who lack the intellectual rigor to carry on in-depth conversations.

    Now, I will agree that college is becoming way too expensive and that the trades ought to be emphasized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    You are no different in requesting
     
    The police don't "request" I pay my parking tickets, Sport. Maybe they do yours?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. The Brexit supporting Far Right of the UK Conservative Party are Russian supporters to a man, a few ex spooks excepted led by a woman. Surprisingly many of them have Russian wives 30 years younger than they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Jon0815 says:
    @Sean
    I agree Siberia would be too difficult. But if for some reason China wanted to clip Russia's wings (and John Mearshemer suggests it is inevitable they will) a temptingly easy advance would be to drive across land to the Sea of Okhotsk, and stop after capturing Vladivostok.

    Yes China does not want to start a war, but it will inevitably come into conflict with, or Finlandise, all countries on its borders. Russia will not want to fight America's battles, but that geopolitical fate is one that goes with the territory.

    I agree Siberia would be too difficult. But if for some reason China wanted to clip Russia’s wings (and John Mearshemer suggests it is inevitable they will) a temptingly easy advance would be to drive across land to the Sea of Okhotsk, and stop after capturing Vladivostok.

    Russia has massive strategic nuclear superiority over China, and hence can use tactical nuclear weapons against Chinese forces with impunity. The invading PLA units would quickly become radioactive vapor.

    Even if China achieved nuclear parity with Russia, and successfully seized Vladivostok, such a seizure would make no sense from a cost/benefits perspective.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Sean
    Russia could not win a nuclear exchange with China, except in the restricted sense of coming out with fewer dead people. Actually Russia's thermonuclear weapons superiority over China is most salient in tactical nukes. It is a bluff, and shows Russia wants to keep it a matter of battlefield nukes rather than strategic. The theory goes that after a conventional attack the defender will fire a tactical nuke and the invader will at most fire a tactical nuke back. (But the little nukes like the nuclear bazooka disappeared from Nato because once you go nuclear the other side will up the ante and you will end up at strategic level. Nuclear weapons have no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with them.)


    The Duke Nukem theorem is what the Americans tried to impose on the Nato defending West Europe from a Warsaw pact situation, but it did not really convince even the Americans (When Kissinger was brought in to school new pres Ronald Reagan on thermonuclear reality, Kissinger advised President Ray-gun that he should never use any kind in nuclear weapon first.) When Russia amassed ever more massive conventional forces with what seemed enough materiel for a standing start (ie surprise attack ) arrayed advance into the West, Nato became increasingly worried about a Soviet conventional attack and spent a fortune (conventional weapons are expensive) on conventional defences. I think it was obvious that they were not acting as if they would have actually first use tactically nuked a Soviet conventional attack. But, they knew the Soviets could roll over all those conventional defenses . Nato generals undersood this, see the the Cold war books they wrote.


    https://defenceindepth.co/2016/08/01/general-sir-john-hacketts-the-third-world-war-or-how-to-think-about-a-future-war-with-russia-today/Hackett’s earlier attempt at writing a scenario had the Warsaw Pact advancing to the French border in as little as 4 days leading to the occupation of West Germany, a D-day style NATO counterattack two years later, followed by a Soviet collapse. After distributing drafts of this early version, he was told by several retired US and West German generals that if it was published it would undermine public confidence in NATO. A year earlier, in 1976, Belgian Brigadier General Robert Close published a controversial book, Europe Without Defense? 48 hours That Could Change the Face of the World, involving a scenario in which the Warsaw Pact launches a surprise attack and advances to the Rhine in two days. Fearing the prospect of undermining NATO, Hackett developed more optimistic scenarios, including the one that was eventually published.
     
    To the Russian leadership Russia's seizure of Ukrainian territory made sense from a cost benefit perspective. China is going to try and dominate Russia, and if Russia resists China will will take punitive measures against Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "I’m asking people to voluntarily stop using words that are loaded terms used to smuggle premises into a conversation without debate / analysis."

    Using your logic, we can extend those "loaded terms" to include cuck and race realist, assuming that "college educated" is indeed a loaded term.

    "Accusing me of being a “social justice warrior” is embarrassingly off-base if you have read any of my numerous comments here over the past few years."

    You offered the suggestion since you were triggered for people to refrain from employing "college educated" in discourse. If YOU want to stop using that term, go right ahead if it makes you feel better about yourself.

    "It is the “thought police” who are happy with us using a positive term, “college-educated”..."

    You are no different in requesting that people not use this term, which to most people is rather innocuous.

    "to describe something that is increasingly personally and socially destructive"

    Maybe, or maybe not.

    "spending, and usually borrowing, vast sums of money to be indoctrinated and rarely if ever presented with a full range of evidence and viewpoints..."

    No, colleges and universities are generally not groupthink mills that chews and spits out radicals who lack the intellectual rigor to carry on in-depth conversations.

    Now, I will agree that college is becoming way too expensive and that the trades ought to be emphasized.

    You are no different in requesting

    The police don’t “request” I pay my parking tickets, Sport. Maybe they do yours?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Sean says:
    @Jon0815

    I agree Siberia would be too difficult. But if for some reason China wanted to clip Russia’s wings (and John Mearshemer suggests it is inevitable they will) a temptingly easy advance would be to drive across land to the Sea of Okhotsk, and stop after capturing Vladivostok.
     
    Russia has massive strategic nuclear superiority over China, and hence can use tactical nuclear weapons against Chinese forces with impunity. The invading PLA units would quickly become radioactive vapor.

    Even if China achieved nuclear parity with Russia, and successfully seized Vladivostok, such a seizure would make no sense from a cost/benefits perspective.

    Russia could not win a nuclear exchange with China, except in the restricted sense of coming out with fewer dead people. Actually Russia’s thermonuclear weapons superiority over China is most salient in tactical nukes. It is a bluff, and shows Russia wants to keep it a matter of battlefield nukes rather than strategic. The theory goes that after a conventional attack the defender will fire a tactical nuke and the invader will at most fire a tactical nuke back. (But the little nukes like the nuclear bazooka disappeared from Nato because once you go nuclear the other side will up the ante and you will end up at strategic level. Nuclear weapons have no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with them.)

    The Duke Nukem theorem is what the Americans tried to impose on the Nato defending West Europe from a Warsaw pact situation, but it did not really convince even the Americans (When Kissinger was brought in to school new pres Ronald Reagan on thermonuclear reality, Kissinger advised President Ray-gun that he should never use any kind in nuclear weapon first.) When Russia amassed ever more massive conventional forces with what seemed enough materiel for a standing start (ie surprise attack ) arrayed advance into the West, Nato became increasingly worried about a Soviet conventional attack and spent a fortune (conventional weapons are expensive) on conventional defences. I think it was obvious that they were not acting as if they would have actually first use tactically nuked a Soviet conventional attack. But, they knew the Soviets could roll over all those conventional defenses . Nato generals undersood this, see the the Cold war books they wrote.

    https://defenceindepth.co/2016/08/01/general-sir-john-hacketts-the-third-world-war-or-how-to-think-about-a-future-war-with-russia-today/Hackett’s earlier attempt at writing a scenario had the Warsaw Pact advancing to the French border in as little as 4 days leading to the occupation of West Germany, a D-day style NATO counterattack two years later, followed by a Soviet collapse. After distributing drafts of this early version, he was told by several retired US and West German generals that if it was published it would undermine public confidence in NATO. A year earlier, in 1976, Belgian Brigadier General Robert Close published a controversial book, Europe Without Defense? 48 hours That Could Change the Face of the World, involving a scenario in which the Warsaw Pact launches a surprise attack and advances to the Rhine in two days. Fearing the prospect of undermining NATO, Hackett developed more optimistic scenarios, including the one that was eventually published.

    To the Russian leadership Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian territory made sense from a cost benefit perspective. China is going to try and dominate Russia, and if Russia resists China will will take punitive measures against Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - You can also follow this blog from my website *akarlin.com* and/or subscribe to this *feed*. *Comments policy*.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS