**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Furthermore, what reason do you have to think that Putin is a dictator? As far as I'm aware, he's been voted in by a population that loves him.

Then you're not very aware. Putin has changed the laws in Russia so he basically can remain in charge as long as he wants. That's pretty much the definition of a dictator.

[OngBonga]

So russian-speaking is the key term? If you speak whichever language, other countries who speak the same language have a claim for your land? Ok. What about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and others where people don't speak russian? They fair game too?

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/201...and-lithuania/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9224273.html

Do you really fucking believe these articles? Fuck's sake.

Russia do not want Finland. They wanted Crimea, perhaps Donetsk and other contentious places in Ukraine. There's also regions in Moldova. But Estonia? Lithuania? Latvia? These places are not Russian, they are not pro-Russian, they don't speak Russian.

Russia does not want these places to join NATO. That is enitrely understandable since NATO is an organisation created to confront Russia. NATO should be abolished, and a new bloc including Russia created to replace it.

[OngBonga]

Then you're not very aware. Putin has changed the laws in Russia so he basically can remain in charge as long as he wants. That's pretty much the definition of a dictator.

Well so long as he has the support of the population, I couldn't really give a fuck what term we decide to call him.

He's democratic, therefore not a dictator in my book. Or certainly not the kind of dictator we should be conerned about.

[Poopadoop]

No it's not. It's no more a threat than Germany dominating Europe.

Just utter nonsense.

I don't think you've thought about what it means. If any one country dominates Europe that means they're strong enough to kick our ass.

Maybe they decide they want to own the UK too, how are we going to stop them?

And even if they don't want to own us, what if they just decide they don't like us and won't trade with us? We might not fall apart, but we'd definitely be worse off.

[OngBonga]

They'll probably absorb Belarus in time. I'd have thought the population there would greatly approve of that, considering the government they currently have.

[OngBonga]

I don't think you've thought about what it means. If any one country dominates Europe that means they're strong enough to kick our ass.

There are lots of countries capable of kicking our ass. Should we be worried about them all? Are you afraid of Israel? You should be, if you're afraid of Russia.

[OngBonga]

Russia are already capable of doing a lot more than "kicking our ass".

[OngBonga]

Maybe they decide they want to own the UK too, how are we going to stop them?

Utter nonsense.

[OngBonga]

And even if they don't want to own us, what if they just decide they don't like us and won't trade with us?

We can't force people to trade with us. We don't have a god given right to be traded with.

More nonsense.

[Poopadoop]

You like Putin don't you?

[OngBonga]

Not really. I just think we should show Russia more respect.

[Poopadoop]

Not really. I just think we should show Russia more respect.

It's not disrespectful to take them seriously as a power.

What's wrong is to project your own goodwill onto others. If you can't see how Putin's actions have been aggressive and threatening, then you've not been paying attention.

[OngBonga]

It's not disrespectful to take them seriously as a power.

What's wrong is to project your own goodwill onto others. If you can't see how Putin's actions have been aggressive and threatening, then you've not been paying attention.

OUR actions are aggressive and threatening. Russia are an issue for the likes of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia because of OUR expansion.

We're the ones creating the conditions for an unhealthy relationship.

[Poopadoop]

There are lots of countries capable of kicking are ass. Should we be worried about them all? Are you afraid of Israel?

Had to give this a nod.

And I'm the one talking nonsense...

[Poopadoop]

OUR actions are aggressive and threatening.

Really. What sovereign territories have we annexed lately?

Russia are an issue for the likes of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia because of OUR expansion.

You mean in the 1800s? Far as I know that's the last time the UK expanded. We've shrunk a lot since then.

[OngBonga]

Really. What sovereign territories have we annexed lately?

Is this the only measure of international expansion?

I'm talking about NATO with regards to "our" expansion. I'd have thought that was obvious, if only you weren't seeking to hound on anything you can.

[OngBonga]

Had to give this a nod.

And I'm the one talking nonsense...

Israel could kick our ass. They have a lot more nukes than they let on know. They have a lot of American military hardware. They also have demonstrated expansionist ideals, not just into Hebrew speaking places either. They're taking Arabic land.

Why should we be concerned about Russia annexing Crimea, but play economic buddies with Israel while they build settlements in Palestine? It's nice and convenient that Palestine isn't actually recognised by Israel. At least Russia have the god damn deceny to recognise Ukraine, even if they have territorial disputes.

[Poopadoop]

Is this the only measure of international expansion?

I'm talking about NATO with regards to "our" expansion. I'd have thought that was obvious, if only you weren't seeking to hound on anything you can.

Nothing wrong with building allies. Nothing aggressive about it either. Would you prefer they were allies with someone else?

[Poopadoop]

Israel could kick our ass. They have a lot more nukes than they let on know. They have a lot of American military hardware. They also have demonstrated expansionist ideals, not just into Hebrew speaking places either. They're taking Arabic land.

Why should we be concerned about Russia annexing Crimea, but play economic buddies with Israel while they build settlements in Palestine? It's nice and convenient that Palestine isn't actually recognised by Israel. At least Russia have the god damn deceny to recognise Ukraine, even if they have territorial disputes.

I'm not defending Israel. They're actions are reprehensible, I agree. I'm saying they can't beat us in a war, at least not in any meaningful way that would allow them to take over our country.

But, if a country like Russia or Germany were allowed to control most of Europe, they could beat us in a war and take over our country if they wanted to. There'd be no way of stopping them alone.

Just because something isn't a threat to happen today doesn't mean we should allow it to grow into a threat.

[OngBonga]

NATO is more than an alliance. It's a military alliance. It essentially delegates foreign policy to the dominant bloc member... USA. Russia rightfully are wary of Lithuania et al becoming satellite states of America.

[OngBonga]

I'm not defending Israel. They're actions are reprehensible, I agree. I'm saying they can't beat us in a war, at least not in any meaningful way that would allow them to take over our country.

But, if a country like Russia or Germany were allowed to control most of Europe, they could beat us in a war and take over our country if they wanted to. There'd be no way of stopping them alone.

Just because something isn't a threat to happen today doesn't mean we should allow it to grow into a threat.

Ok well maybe, maybe not.

But there's a really solid point in there that we ignore Israel's actions while crtisising Russia's. Why is Russia more of a threat than Israel?

[Poopadoop]

NATO is more than an alliance. It's a DEFENSIVE alliance.

fyp.

It essentially delegates foreign policy to the dominant bloc member... USA. Russia rightfully are wary of Lithuania et al becoming satellite states of America.

USA doesn't dictate foreign policy to NATO. Many countries in NATO didn't join the Iraq war because Iraq didn't attack the USA.

Russia rightfully are wary of Lithuania et al becoming satellite states of America.

Being a defensive ally and being a satellite are two different things. Satellites do whatever you tell them to. Defensive allies guarantee to come to your aid if you're attacked.

[OngBonga]

You're also missing the point that Russia could already beat us in a war. Why should we be worried about what they can become, rather than what they already are? Why do we need to "keep in check" someone who is already much stronger than us?

[OngBonga]

NATO is more than an alliance. It's a DEFENSIVE alliance.

This actually made me howl with laughter.

Defending against what? Russia? But they're not a threat! They weren't even a threat when they were the Soviet Union!

[Poopadoop]

Why is Russia more of a threat than Israel?

In terms of us, or the world in general? I assume you mean that Israel is a threat in the MidEast so we should try to stop them. I agree, we should.

But Russia is a potential threat to us in a way Israel is very unlikely to ever be. For one, they're already vastly more powerful. For another, they are geographically closer. Finally, they could (not saying they would, but could) threaten our allies directly. Those are reasons to take them more seriously than Israel as a threat to the UK.

There's also some politics involved of course. Israel is US's baby and trying to oppose them is complicated because of our relationship with the US.

[OngBonga]

USA doesn't dictate foreign policy to NATO. Many countries in NATO didn't join the Iraq war because Iraq didn't attack the USA.

Many countries didn't join USA in the Iraq war because it was an illegal war, it was not supported by international law, it was not supported by the UN, so member states were not duty bound to oblige to America's demands.

If the UN supported the war, well you'd have seen all of NATO united.

[OngBonga]

Russia is closer. Right.

Now tell me when they've ever attacked us. Show me why we need to be wary of them.

[Poopadoop]

This actually made me howl with laughter.

Defending against what? Russia? But they're not a threat! They weren't even a threat when they were the Soviet Union!

But you understand the difference between a defensive and offensive alliance, right? The former says if you're attacked we'll join, the latter says if you start a war, we'll join. One is done to prevent war, the other to facilitate it. There's a big difference.

I acknowledge there's probably a fair bit of inertia involved in holding up that alliance. But why dissolve it when it's protecting us? Do you want an alliance only when there's an immediate threat?

They weren't even a threat when they were the Soviet Union!

So after WWII Russia was not a threat? They invaded Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '68. They blockaded West Berlin. Without a deterrent they would have walked over the rest of Europe.

[Poopadoop]

If the UN supported the war, well you'd have seen all of NATO united.

Then it's a UN war, not a NATO war.

[Poopadoop]

Russia is closer. Right.

Now tell me when they've ever attacked us. Show me why we need to be wary of them.

I've already explained why we need to be wary of every big power, especially in Europe.

Doesn't matter that they've never attacked us before. Do you really think that's going to stop them if they wanted to attack us in the future?

[OngBonga]

I acknowledge there's probably a fair bit of inertia involved in holding up that alliance. But why dissolve it when it's protecting us? Do you want an alliance only when there's an immediate threat?

But it's not protecting us. It's creating an environment which makes war more likely, not less.

I want an alliance which includes Russia, not one deisgned to confront Russia. That's how to keep Russia "in check"... by being allied to them.

[OngBonga]

I've already explained why we need to be wary of every big power, especially in Europe.

Doesn't matter that they've never attacked us before. Do you really think that's going to stop them if they wanted to attack us in the future?

By this logic, you should be worried about Germany. And you would also accept the rest of Europe being worried about us.

Because Germany is a big power. And so are we.

[OngBonga]

Being paranoid about each other is unhealthy. I'm surprised that is not obvious.

[Poopadoop]

Being paranoid about each other is unhealthy. I'm surprised that is not obvious.

Paranoid would be building huge fortresses on our coastlines. Having a policy of containment is not being paranoid.

I never said the things I described about a country dominating Europe were destined to happen. I said they're possibilities that we should try to prevent from happening.

History is full of examples of countries expanding. I don't understand why you think it's somehow never going to happen again, or that we should just trust every country to be good.

Dictators are historically dangerous leaders. That's why we should keep an eye on them. Especially when they are in charge of a powerful country that is a few steps away from our shores.

[Savy]

Tbf you should be a bit anti Russia purely due to their horrendous abuse of human rights, the fact they lock up people for being gay & kill people that oppose the system.

[Poopadoop]

By this logic, you should be worried about Germany. And you would also accept the rest of Europe being worried about us.

Because Germany is a big power. And so are we.

Lol, we are worried about Germany, and they about us. Not in the short term, but in the long term. The fact that we're allies today doesn't mean we can't ever be enemies again.

[OngBonga]

So after WWII Russia was not a threat? They invaded Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '68. They blockaded West Berlin. Without a deterrent they would have walked over the rest of Europe.

I had to have a look at the wiki pages to see what the circumstances were. Of course, these are not expansionist invasions, like what we saw from Germany in the late 1930's. Both of these invasions were an attempt to reinforce control of nations that were already under their sphere of influence. These nations were under Soviet control since the end of WWII, both Hungary and Czechoslovakia (as Slovak Republic) were allied to Germany. These are occupied nations that had just lost a war, and were under the control of one of the victors of the war. Germany was occupied after the war, too. We might well have invaded them if there was an attempt to overthrow the government that we approved of.

You can't look at these "invasions" and consider them evidence that we, the UK, need to fear Russian expansion. These are the consequences of a brutal war, and of a superpower losing its grip. These circumstance do not apply now, and have never applied to Britain where Russia are concerned.

[OngBonga]

Tbf you should be a bit anti Russia purely due to their horrendous abuse of human rights, the fact they lock up people for being gay & kill people that oppose the system.

Yeah well I'd be anti everyone to a degree if we're going to start playing this game. I mean I consider it an abuse of my human rights to lock me up for smoking a spliff. The law allows that to happen here, so we're not much better. I don't think the UK has a great deal of moral high ground to stand on.

[OngBonga]

Lol, we are worried about Germany, and they about us. Not in the short term, but in the long term. The fact that we're allies today doesn't mean we can't ever be enemies again.

I'm not worried about Germany.

[OngBonga]

Paranoid would be building huge fortresses on our coastlines.

Paranoia is thinking Russia pose a serious enough threat to us that we need to invest billions of pounds on a shitty little nuclear programme.

Delusion is thinking that our shitty little nuclear programme is in any way a deterrent to the might of Russia.

[Poopadoop]

But it's not protecting us. It's creating an environment which makes war more likely, not less.

Disagree 100%. There's no reason to think NATO will ever attack Russia unprovoked. If Russia attacks NATO, they will get their asses kicked. Therefore war is very unlikely between the two as it stands now.

Disband NATO totally destabilizes that balance of power. Anything could happen then.

I want an alliance which includes Russia, not one deisgned to confront Russia.

We're only 'confronting' them with a defensive alliance. It's not a threat unless they attack us or our allies.

That's how to keep Russia "in check"... by being allied to them.

Would probably have its advantages too, I agree.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah well I'd be anti everyone to a degree if we're going to start playing this game. I mean I consider it an abuse of my human rights to lock me up for smoking a spliff. The law allows that to happen here, so we're not much better. I don't think the UK has a great deal of moral high ground to stand on.

Haha as if marijuana laws are on the same level as oppressing freedom of speech and gay bashing.

In Russia you go to jail not just for breaking the law but for disagreeing with the law.

[Savy]

Yeah well I'd be anti everyone to a degree if we're going to start playing this game. I mean I consider it an abuse of my human rights to lock me up for smoking a spliff. The law allows that to happen here, so we're not much better. I don't think the UK has a great deal of moral high ground to stand on.

Yeah but your freedom here in the UK is much greater than for those in Russia. Definitely far from perfect but you get to moan about it pretty freely, that's the important bit.

[OngBonga]

Haha as if marijuana laws are on the same level as oppressing freedom of speech and gay bashing.

I consider my right to smoke a spliff to be on equal footing with the right for a man to suck cock. Both fall under the realm of "noone else's fucking business".

[OngBonga]

Yeah but your freedom here in the UK is much greater than for those in Russia. Definitely far from perfect but you get to moan about it pretty freely, that's the important bit.

If Russians have a problem with their freedoms, do something about it. They are not a nation of oppressed people, we're not talking about a big North Korea here. The Russian people have overthrown governments before, they can do it again.

[OngBonga]

They obviously don't have a problem because they fucking love Putin.

[Poopadoop]

If Russians have a problem with their freedoms, do something about it. They are not a nation of oppressed people, we're not talking about a big North Korea here. The Russian people have overthrown governments before, they can do it again.

Not quite that easy to do ...

[Savy]

If Russians have a problem with their freedoms, do something about it. They are not a nation of oppressed people, we're not talking about a big North Korea here. The Russian people have overthrown governments before, they can do it again.

This is where you're just chatting shit, go look it up. They literally kill the leaders of opposing political parties. You can't protest things.

[Poopadoop]

They obviously don't have a problem because they fucking love Putin.

Maybe they just prefer to say that than go to the salt mines...

[Savy]

Not that Russia is some big evil enemy we should all be terrified of, lots of backwards places in the world and Russia just happens to be a big one. Definitely gets more air time than it deserves due to the whole America situation but they definitely aren't worthy of you defending so much.

[wufwugy]

Yup, it's all been made up and they even dubbed the words into his mouth to make it look like he's been saying them. Goddamn media!

He literally hasn't said them.

Let's take the most famous example: that Mexicans are rapists. 1. Mexican is not a race. 2. He literally did not call them rapists. Here is what he said

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Mexico is a nation-state. Trump was talking about the nation-state in the context of illegal immigration. He alluded to the Mexican government sending illegal aliens to the United States. Regardless of whether or not that claim is true, that is what he was talking about. He called those that Mexico sends as bringing with them problems and drugs and crime, that they're rapists, and some are good people.

At no point did he say the Hispanic or Latino race was these things. At no point did he say that legal immigrants are these things. At no point did he say that Mexicans are these things. He said that those who are being sent by Mexico are these things.

I was one of those who originally thought he called a race rapists. The media (and my own brain) tricked me too.

[Savy]

Remember Ong WWPRD.

[Poopadoop]

I seriously think Ong has a man-crush on Putin. That also explains why he likes Trump so much.

[CoccoBill]

Do you really fucking believe these articles? Fuck's sake.

Russia do not want Finland. They wanted Crimea, perhaps Donetsk and other contentious places in Ukraine. There's also regions in Moldova. But Estonia? Lithuania? Latvia? These places are not Russian, they are not pro-Russian, they don't speak Russian.

Well it''s great that you know what "Russia" wants or doesn't want. Doesn't sound at all like ramblings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupa..._Baltic_states
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...054916449.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...invasion-fears
http://europe.newsweek.com/counting-...s-414877?rm=eu

Oh right but these are all just "news" sites with clear agendas to always lie about everything. It's not like Russia ever occupied any of these countries before.

Russia does not want these places to join NATO. That is enitrely understandable since NATO is an organisation created to confront Russia. NATO should be abolished, and a new bloc including Russia created to replace it.

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO members.

[OngBonga]

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO members.

Yep, because they fear Russia.

Finland are not a NATO member. Because they don't fear Russia.

What does that tell you about NATO's purpose?

[Poopadoop]

Yep, because they fear Russia.

Finland are not a NATO member. Because they don't fear Russia.

What does that tell you about NATO's purpose?

It's the 'We're all afraid of Russia' club. What does that tell you about Russia?

[CoccoBill]

Finland are not a NATO member. Because they don't fear Russia.

I do realize you're trolling, but I'll still add that this, too, is completely false. Finland is not a NATO member because they fear Russia.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ru...-idUSKCN0ZH5IV

[OngBonga]

I'm semi-trolling, as usual. I'm sincere when I say that we should be allied to Russia.

Note that this article is recent. Finland have become more concerned since Crimea. It's unjustified, but it's why both Finland and Sweden are moving closer to defence ties with the West. Before Crimea, there was no fear.

Finland realise that joining NATO will piss Russia off. They also realise that a neutral policy will bode well for Fin-Rus relations. So it's in their interests to not join NATO. But it's important to note that the very fact they haven't joined NATO yet suggests that one of the following must be true... a) Finland do not believe that Russia poses a threat, or that b) Finland can cope with the threat.

It's an interesting article you post there. I watched the related footage about an hour ago. Putin is reasonable and rational. The consequences are moving troops closer to the border, which it must be stressed Russia have every right to do. Just like USA can have as many troops as they can fit in El Paso, and there's fuck all Mexico can do about it other than have a moan.

The Finnish people are opposed to the idea of joining NATO. They don't want strained relations with Russia. They would fear Russia more if Finland was part of NATO. The Finnish recognise NATO for what it is... an anti-Russia alliance, and understands that it causes more problems than it solves.

[OngBonga]

It's the 'We're all afraid of Russia' club. What does that tell you about Russia?

That they once occupied their territories.

[Savy]

From my limited knowledge of people from Finland they think they'd take Russia in the war because when Russia tried invading in WW2 it was an absolute blood bath for them.

[OngBonga]

Yeah I read a comment from a Finnish person on one article I read, saying that the fear factor isn't as effective on them because the Finns have held their own against Russian aggression in the past.

[Poopadoop]

It probably would be better to ally with Russia and keep them under control that way, but NATO does the job pretty effectively now anyways. And do they even want to be a part of NATO? Russia has a longstanding fear of the West that goes back to the Cold War. Hell it goes back to their communist revolution which the West basically tried to reverse.

Finland did do well against Russia during WWII but thinking they could hold their own in a 1-1 fight that took place today is jingoistic fantasy. It's not 1939 and Russia doesn't have an army weakened by purges and using 19th century human wave tactics. The Russians today would take them out in about five days, a week tops.

On an aside, there's an interesting book about WWII called The Chief Culprit. This former Russian intelligence officer says that Stalin tried to encourage WWII by signing the non-aggression pact with Hitler. His plan was to let Germany and the Allies weaken each other for a few years then come in and 'liberate' Europe (in the same sense as he liberated Eastern Europe in '45 -i.e., convert them all to communism). There's also good evidence that Stalin was about to attack Hitler in '41 and Hitler beat him to the punch. He actually makes a very good case for how Russia was building offensive weapons, stockpiling for an offensive and massing troops on the borders and then whoops they got attacked first.

[wufwugy]

Hillary is fucked. He held a press conference with Broaddrick, Shelton, and a few others. Trump train going balls deep.

[Poopadoop]

Finland realise that joining NATO will piss Russia off. They also realise that a neutral policy will bode well for Fin-Rus relations. So it's in their interests to not join NATO. But it's important to note that the very fact they haven't joined NATO yet suggests that one of the following must be true... a) Finland do not believe that Russia poses a threat, or that b) Finland can cope with the threat.

It's an interesting article you post there. I watched the related footage about an hour ago. Putin is reasonable and rational. The consequences are moving troops closer to the border, which it must be stressed Russia have every right to do. Just like USA can have as many troops as they can fit in El Paso, and there's fuck all Mexico can do about it other than have a moan.

The Finnish people are opposed to the idea of joining NATO. They don't want strained relations with Russia. They would fear Russia more if Finland was part of NATO. The Finnish recognise NATO for what it is... an anti-Russia alliance, and understands that it causes more problems than it solves.

My reading of that article is that Putin is trying to bully Finland into staying out of NATO. Saying 'we're gonna move troops to your borders if you join' is a very direct threat. Finland both a) knows Russia is a potential threat and doesn't want to poke the bear; and b) knows they'd get their ass kicked in a war with Russia (and doesn't want to poke the bear).

They're more or less protected by NATO anyways (not by treaty but in the same sense as any western democracy is protected, it's not like Russia could just walk in and take them out and no-one would try to stop them) and my guess is they see no reason to complicate things. They probably trade a lot with Russia and staying on good terms is in their best interest.

[OngBonga]

Of course Russia would not want to be part of NATO. They might be interested in an alternative, though. Has anybody asked them?

WWII should have built bridges between the West and Russia. They paid the heaviest price to defeat Hitler. We should never forget that. I realise that Stalin was a shit, and that he was playing his own game. But Russia, the people, we should be grateful for their bravery and their sacrifices. Russia weakened Hitler, it was his biggest mistake. Without Russia, maybe it would've taken a few more nukes.

I find it astonishing that we in the west are willing to disregard history, and persue a path that leads to more tensions. This is where Putin resonates with me... I find his bewilderment at American policy to be sincere. He regularly refers to America as "partners", he wants to work with them, but is frustrated at every opportunity. It's us who don't want to work with them. It doesn't make any sense. So long as we maintain an atmosphere of rivalry, there will be no trust. This really has to change, because USA and Russia are the two biggest military powers in the world. The conesquences of war between them doesn't bear thinking about.

[OngBonga]

Saying 'we're gonna move troops to your borders if you join' is a very direct threat.

What the hell would you do if you were the president of Russia, and Finland joined NATO?

[OngBonga]

Yeah but your freedom here in the UK is much greater than for those in Russia. Definitely far from perfect but you get to moan about it pretty freely, that's the important bit.

I will say this is fair enough. We're way ahead of Russia when it comes to freedom. But this is not reason to persue a policy of rivalry with Russia.

We're all friendly with Israel, not only are we allied to them, but we protect them from critisism by shouting anti-semitism at anyone who dares to challenge their policies. We protect an Apartheid nation, yet we're arrogant enough to think we have the moral high ground when it comes to Russia.

Humanity has much to do, not just Russia.

[boost]

Grunching

Ong, here's what I think you don't appreciate-- nation states are at all times either performing the precarious balancing act of power distribution, or they are at war. This is true of all nation states as they relate to all other nation states. There is no other way of it. So long as we have nation states there will be a conflict of interest between all nation states with all other nation states. This system naturally seeks equilibrium, and part of that process is alliances, and one of those alliances is NATO. It could be argued that NATO has been on the good end of an imbalance in the power dynamic, but the solution is not disbanding NATO, because that would only disrupt the balance equally or to a greater degree in the opposite direction causing all sorts of potential chaos.

You say NATO should disband and we (the UK I imagine?) should join an alliance with Russia. Ok. An alliance against whom exactly?

[OngBonga]

Why does an alliance need to be "against" anyone? An alliance can be a union based on mutual benefit, not just mutual fear.

Your comments are interesting. I saw a clip of Putin himself talking of the balance of power earlier this evening. He argues that this balance has avoided conflict since WWII, but he is concerned that the West are seeking to tip the balance in the favour to such a degree that the idea of "balance of power" becomes laughable. He isn't seeking to dominate, he's taking measures to ensure that the west doesn't dominate. He wants to maintain balance, we don't.

I'm ok with an equal balance of power. I'm uncomorftable with either party dominant. I guess that's why I favour alliance with Russia. A relationship based on mutual benefit and mutual respect, rather than mutual paranoia and mutual distrust.

[Savy]

Elections thread surely has to be about the election whilst the debates are going on. Short recess until it's over? Inb4 relationship with Russia comes up in the debate.

[OngBonga]

Stop trying to derail.

[Savy]

Stop trying to derail.

Stop buying into Putin propaganda.

[OngBonga]

Stop buying into Putin propaganda.

Shh, election.

[OngBonga]

Say "fact checking" again, weirdo.

[wufwugy]

Didja catch that? She said "because of. Russian! Aggression!"

Washington wants war, folks. Obama has gone so far as to bomb Syrian forces multiple times to help ISIS. It's a proxy war against Russia.