Current Events > GOP lawmakers in Russia for closed door meeting

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1014133428487368705
Fuck my senator is there too. Absolutely no collusion m I rite?
---

Politicians are having a meeting!
Collusion! Collusion! Collusion!
---

glitteringfairy posted...

Politicians are having a meeting!
Collusion! Collusion! Collusion!

No need to talk to Russia and you know it
---

spudger posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Politicians are having a meeting!
Collusion! Collusion! Collusion!

No need to talk to Russia and you know it

Agreed. Fuck communication.
---

glitteringfairy posted...

spudger posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Politicians are having a meeting!
Collusion! Collusion! Collusion!

No need to talk to Russia and you know it

Agreed. Fuck communication.

Slurp slurp
---

No reason given for this? For the "need" to be closed door?

Genocet_10-325 posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

spudger posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Politicians are having a meeting!
Collusion! Collusion! Collusion!

No need to talk to Russia and you know it

Agreed. Fuck communication.

Slurp slurp

---

TC, what should the US's relationship with Russia be? How would you prefer we treat them?
---

s0nicfan posted...

TC, what should the US's relationship with Russia be? How would you prefer we treat them?

Bipartisan participation, for starters. Do you really not see anything wrong with a closed door meeting of just one party?

BWLurker posted...

s0nicfan posted...

TC, what should the US's relationship with Russia be? How would you prefer we treat them?

Bipartisan participation, for starters. Do you really not see anything wrong with a closed door meeting of just one party?

I do, but in general the people who seethe at any neutral or positive interaction with Russia generally can't vocalize what they actually want, because saying "I want another cold war with a nuclear power" looks bad on paper.
---

BWLurker posted...

s0nicfan posted...

TC, what should the US's relationship with Russia be? How would you prefer we treat them?

Bipartisan participation, for starters. Do you really not see anything wrong with a closed door meeting of just one party?

Spare the effort. He's never seen anything wrong with how Trump and the GOP have been handling Russia.
---

Well that's embarrassing, good boy. Talk about bad timing.
---

s0nicfan posted...

TC, what should the US's relationship with Russia be? How would you prefer we treat them?

i'm not TC but i would prefer no diplomatic relations whatsoever, along with a joint cold shoulder by our allies and the entire international community.

s0nicfan posted...

I do, but in general the people who seethe at any neutral or positive interaction with Russia generally can't vocalize what they actually want, because saying "I want another cold war with a nuclear power" looks bad on paper.

it is appropriate to resume the cold war with a nation that is starting hot wars with its neighbors.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

it is appropriate to resume the cold war with a nation that is starting hot wars with its neighbors.

This cant be overstated

I'm generally not a fan of the US getting involved in or starting yet another war, and especially not with a nation that can actually fire back. Pressure on Russia should be done through international channels, but I'm also a bit more compromising when it comes to Crimea if it means we can get bilateral support to get us out of Syria. To put it bluntly, ending our involvement in Syria through support with Russia with worth Crimea in my mind, because reality is you're not going to get both without a literal fight against Russia, and that has far, FAR more consequences.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I'm generally not a fan of the US getting involved in or starting yet another war, and especially not with a nation that can actually fire back. Pressure on Russia should be done through international channels, but I'm also a bit more compromising when it comes to Crimea if it means we can get bilateral support to get us out of Syria. To put it bluntly, ending our involvement in Syria through support with Russia with worth Crimea in my mind, because reality is you're not going to get both without a literal fight against Russia, and that has far, FAR more consequences.

The cold war was not a war. It was two nations attempting to exert pressure through international channels against one another.

We won. Now, only we can exert international pressure against Russia. They can't "fire back."
---

s0nicfan posted...

BWLurker posted...

s0nicfan posted...

TC, what should the US's relationship with Russia be? How would you prefer we treat them?

Bipartisan participation, for starters. Do you really not see anything wrong with a closed door meeting of just one party?

I do, but in general the people who seethe at any neutral or positive interaction with Russia generally can't vocalize what they actually want, because saying "I want another cold war with a nuclear power" looks bad on paper.

What do you propose then? Should we reward them for misbehaving? They deserve the cold shoulder from the world, tbh.

BWLurker posted...

s0nicfan posted...

BWLurker posted...

s0nicfan posted...

TC, what should the US's relationship with Russia be? How would you prefer we treat them?

Bipartisan participation, for starters. Do you really not see anything wrong with a closed door meeting of just one party?

I do, but in general the people who seethe at any neutral or positive interaction with Russia generally can't vocalize what they actually want, because saying "I want another cold war with a nuclear power" looks bad on paper.

What do you propose then? Should we reward them for misbehaving? They deserve the cold shoulder from the world, tbh.

I think rather than destabilizing yet another region and drive a country to such financial hardship that they start to get desperate, we should accept that we can't get everything we want out of everyone and start to be realistic about where our best gains can be made. For example: isolating Russia over Crimia isn't going to change Russia. You're not going to pressure Putin into changing. Our window of opportunity to act on that is long over, and picking a fight over it is a waste of time. Instead, we should use it as leverage to get more favorable support in Syria and more joint communications so that we can get out of that area. A deal where we agree to leave Crimea in the past in exchange for guarantees about certain things in Syria would be mutually beneficial, avoid an escalation of tensions, and actually help our allies in a meaningful way. Our relationship with Russia should be one of cautious cooperation, not open hostilities, because there's no evidence that "getting tough on Russia" actually makes anything better, and in fact is likely to make things worse.
---

s0nicfan posted...

guarantees

Guarantees from nations that randomly invade their neighbors are less than worthless.

It's not about changing Putin.

It's about destroying his ability to take action.
---

Darkman124 posted...

The cold war was not a war. It was two nations attempting to exert pressure through international channels against one another.

We won. Now, only we can exert international pressure against Russia. They can't "fire back."

We came so close to a nuclear winter that calling the cold war "exerting pressure" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Also, as for "firing back", Russia can cause all sorts of havoc in Syria, cozy up further with China to provide south china sea assets, start actively (or further) funding terrorist states... there's a LOT Russia can do to "fire back" without having to actually shoot us.
---

s0nicfan posted...

We came so close to a nuclear winter that calling the cold war "exerting pressure" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Honestly?

No.

s0nicfan posted...

Also, as for "firing back", Russia can cause all sorts of havoc in Syria, cozy up further with China to provide south china sea assets, start actively (or further) funding terrorist states... there's a LOT Russia can do to "fire back" without having to actually shoot us.

They don't have assets to give China. China's got their own asset base that is far more threatening than anything Russia could feed them.

They also already fund terrorist states, and the threat of them 'further' doing so is more impetus for us to completely wreck their economy via embargo, such that they are left with nothing to give.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

guarantees

Guarantees from nations that randomly invade their neighbors are less than worthless.

It's not about changing Putin.

It's about destroying his ability to take action.

Not when a violation of those guarantees are hard evidence for justified action. If you really want to be on Russia's ass that badly, give them rope and let them tie a noose and hang themselves. At least attempt to get something out of them before you waste political capital and resources pressuring them. Crimea could have been that 4 years ago, but that opportunity passed when we did nothing, and doing something now isn't going to change anything.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Not when a violation of those guarantees are hard evidence for justified action. If you really want to be on Russia's ass that badly, give them rope and let them tie a noose and hang themselves. At least attempt to get something out of them before you waste political capital and resources pressuring them. Crimea could have been that 4 years ago, but that opportunity passed when we did nothing, and doing something now isn't going to change anything.

I think where we fundamentally disagree is the idea that the opportunity has passed. The justification remains popular in the international community.

The opportunity to destroy an economy has certainly not passed, nor has our ability to do it. Also, more recently, their involvement in the 2016 election is a fresh justification.

What has been lost, is the will to do so by our politicians.
---

Darkman124 posted...

They also already fund terrorist states, and the threat of them 'further' doing so is more impetus for us to completely wreck their economy via embargo, such that they are left with nothing to give.

And history has shown that a nation with weapons and nothing left to give usually acts rationally, right? Our steel embargo on Japan was a significant factor in pearl harbor. Iran's (and other countries) nuclear ambitions have been frequently justified by pointing to US asserting pressure as a threat. What do you think happens when we put so much pressure on Russia that they have nothing left to give? Do they just roll over and change? Do we just collapse their country and deal with yet another effectively stateless region filled with starving people? What's the long-term plan beyond an initial wave of sanctions?
---

BWLurker posted...

s0nicfan posted...

TC, what should the US's relationship with Russia be? How would you prefer we treat them?

Bipartisan participation, for starters. Do you really not see anything wrong with a closed door meeting of just one party?

This
---

s0nicfan posted...

And history has shown that a nation with weapons and nothing left to give usually acts rationally, right?

History with the predecessor state to Russia that was similarly starved out?

Yes, actually. That worked quite well.

The other examples are not relevant for a variety of reasons: Japan because that was a pre-nuclear world; Iran because Russia is already a nuclear power.

s0nicfan posted...

What's the long-term plan beyond an initial wave of sanctions?

Coordination with whoever cleans up the ashes. There was a warming period with Yeltsin.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Coordination with whoever cleans up the ashes. There was a warming period with Yeltsin.

Do you think of all the potential threats in the world right now, Russia is the one we should be focusing on to this degree? I ask because I have said, and will continue to say, that our focus should be on China right now and going so far as to crushing a nation as large as Russia will require enough resources as to make us unable to effectively act elsewhere, certainly not with full allied support.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Do you think of all the potential threats in the world right now, Russia is the one we should be focusing on to this degree?

we have the capability to do two things at once.

s0nicfan posted...

I ask because I have said, and will continue to say, that our focus should be on China right now and going so far as to crushing a nation as large as Russia will require enough resources as to make us unable to effectively act elsewhere, certainly not with full allied support.

the resources currently being dedicated to operating against ongoing/developing threats from china likely exceeds the resources required to cripple russia's economy by an order of magnitude. and fwiw, such a distribution of resources is good and logical in my view.

this isn't about the limits of our power.

it's about the willingness of our leaders to use it.
---