Be Mikhail Gorbachev

>implying dissolving the USSR was a bad thing
>implying Yeltsin isn't much, much more responsible for the shitfest than Gorbachev
>implying the generation of yes-men and social climbers who survived Stalin didn't make the collapse inevitable

>calling me politically illiterate
>yet thinks a trade bloc isn't inherently protectionist
Wew, laddo. You can't have "regional free trade", that's protectionism. Just like the EU is protectionist.

>Ukraine says otherwise
Trump isn't going to pull Ukraine into NATO.

>On the other hand, the guy is unpredictable and says many contradictory things, like asking why he can't just nuke people.
The only people he mentioned nuking were ISIS, I don't agree with it due to the civilian casualties but it's not like nukes haven't been made for tactical payloads.

Out of interest, who do you think is worse, ISIS or Imperial Japan?

>The no-fly zone is just another red line, just like in the Ukraine. Unless either side wants an excuse to enter WWIII, it's not going to start WWIII. The US would hope Russia doesn't call the bluff. Russia will call the bluff and it would end up being toothless, like every threat the US lobs at Russia because the US doesn't want WWIII.
In this scenario either Putin backs down, which is extremely unlikely, or he fights back and there's direct combat between Russia and America, something that has literally never happened before. I don't know about you but I really don't think the American government should do something so detrimental as to demand a no fly zone over Syria.

There's even a video of a general being asked about a no fly zone, he says it would mean war with Russia.
youtube.com/watch?v=fmE9Jj-rEVs

>Putin supports Trump just because he wants to be besties
>Putin
>Putin
>Putin as in the Russian Hillary x100 Putin
>Fucking KGB Spymaster Putin

He's using Trump as a useful idiot to make the US withdraw from the global stage to a more isolationist approach so that Russia can expand it's influence into Eastern Europe. He knows NATO is useless without the US backing them.

It's hilarious how in the same breath people can talk about how corrupt and untrustworthy Hillary is and then trust anything that comes out of Putin's mouth. Christ the dude is one of the most corrupt sacks of shit in the 21st century.

Congrats US, you played yourselves

>he thinks Veeky Forums has a coherent ideology beyond trying to look cool and edgy

>isolationist as an insult
Wew. Who exactly do you think yhe war in Syria has benefited? Is Syria better? Is Russia better? Is American better? There is nothing to gain from Syria besides a meme oil pipeline which can just use freight ships instead.

Trump isn't going to abandon Israel, Saudi, Iraq in particular he's said he'll send more troops to. He just doesn't see anything to gain from invading Syria and Iran.

I don't want to sound like a lefty here but the US policy in the middle east is neo-imperialism without reason, Syria and Iran are worth pretty much nothing and yet vested interests want to provoke a war over it.

>4chin is one person

>Wew, laddo. You can't have "regional free trade", that's protectionism.
You do realize that without free trade agreements, trade isn't necessarily free? A free trade agreement is a mutual assurance that trade will remain free. Yes, I do think you're politically illiterate.

>Trump isn't going to pull Ukraine into NATO.
The Ukraine is an example of Putin trying to increase, if not the breadth, then the depth of his sphere of influence, which in your scenario he is free to do.

>The only people he mentioned nuking were ISIS, I don't agree with it due to the civilian casualties but it's not like nukes haven't been made for tactical payloads.
You do realize ISIS is in Syria, it's in the name, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria? You know Syria, the place where the no-fly zone would be and where there would be Russians?

>Out of interest, who do you think is worse, ISIS or Imperial Japan?
Depends on what you mean by worse.

>In this scenario either Putin backs down, which is extremely unlikely, or he fights back and there's direct combat between Russia and America, something that has literally never happened before. I don't know about you but I really don't think the American government should do something so detrimental as to demand a no fly zone over Syria.
It's like you didn't even read it. Every red line the US gives to Russia is a bluff. What happens is the USA backs down. The US barks but does not bite. See Obama.

>youtube.com/watch?v=fmE9Jj-rEVs
>RT
Also John McCain (R, since you're politically illiterate) tried to argue it was possible. The no fly zone is a bluff, or it wouldn't be complete.

But at least they don't have crooked Hillary as president. Trump is much much better. The best. USA! USA! USA!

Notice nothing I said had anything to do with Syria.

Russia doesn't give that much of a shit about Syria either. They're just using it to flex. Backing down is only going to look like weakness and allow Putin more rope in the future.

Nobody was actually going to go to war over Syria or Assad. Wars are pointless now anyway. The current reality is cyber war, and you're a fool if you think that war isn't already being fought between the US, Russia, and China.

I do agree the US needs to take a more hands off approach to the ME though. And to stop associating with the Saudis.

>Send more troops to Iraq
The last thing Iraq needs at the moment.

>i don't want to sound like a lefty
Stop this. Labels are retarded for actual political discourse. Just make your point on its own merit without such a silly preface.

TPP isn't free trade, though. It's specifically designed to keep China out, therefore it isn't "free" by any rational definition.

>The Ukraine is an example of Putin trying to increase, if not the breadth, then the depth of his sphere of influence, which in your scenario he is free to do.
I personally see no reason Russian majoroty land shouldn't be Russian. Crimea and Novorossiya are majoritively Russian. The "putin is going to take all of Crimea!" myth is a meme.

>You do realize ISIS is in Syria, it's in the name, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria? You know Syria, the place where the no-fly zone would be and where there would be Russians?
I assumed he meant places like Mosul, in Iraq.

>Depends on what you mean by worse.
As in do either qualify for being nuked on ethical grounds?

>It's like you didn't even read it. Every red line the US gives to Russia is a bluff. What happens is the USA backs down. The US barks but does not bite. See Obama.
Hillary called for a no fly zone, now either she was bluffing in which case she's a weak leader or she meant it and may well trigger WW3, either way that's a terrible thing to suggest, let alone actually do. "Nuking ISIS" may be a meme but getting into direct war with a country that has more nukes than America is far more retarded.

>Also John McCain (R, since you're politically illiterate) tried to argue it was possible. The no fly zone is a bluff, or it wouldn't be complete.
Whether it's a bluff or not doesn't matter, the fact is it's absolutely retarded either way.

>Russia doesn't give that much of a shit about Syria either. They're just using it to flex.
It does, though. There's a very valuable oil pipeline going through it, which is necessary because Turkey demands high tariffs through the bosphorus, there's also a fairly important warm water port in Tartus.

>The last thing Iraq needs at the moment.
Iraq shouldn't have been invaded in the first place, but it'll never be secure now without US troops there. The alternative is ISIS/Kurds like we see today.

>TPP isn't free trade, though. It's specifically designed to keep China out, therefore it isn't "free" by any rational definition.
TPP is a trade deal that doesn't include China because China is pushing it's own trade deals in the region. The USA is trying to stay in the game.

>I personally see no reason Russian majoroty land shouldn't be Russian. Crimea and Novorossiya are majoritively Russian. The "putin is going to take all of Crimea!" myth is a meme.
It's still an expansion of his sphere of influence.

>I assumed he meant places like Mosul, in Iraq.
Okay, so you assume. Use of nukes is going to cause escalation no matter what and put every nuclear power on red alert.

>As in do either qualify for being nuked on ethical grounds?
No, not really, you seemed to be implying ISIS deserves nukes,

>Hillary called for a no fly zone, now either she was bluffing in which case she's a weak leader or she meant it and may well trigger WW3, either way that's a terrible thing to suggest, let alone actually do. "Nuking ISIS" may be a meme but getting into direct war with a country that has more nukes than America is far more retarded.
The number of nukes is insignificant. Both still have more than enough nukes to obliterate the other. US foreign policy has been toothless with dealing with Russia, that's the truth of it. The globalist neoliberal don't want WWIII. They'd find a way to deescalate if a Russian plane did get shot down.

>Whether it's a bluff or not doesn't matter, the fact is it's absolutely retarded either way.
It's retarded, but it could probably be prevented with enough protest. Trump on the other hand, would probably consider any dissent professional protestors and decide to launch nukes at 3AM just to spite them. The fact that Trump can't keep all his campaign promises means the same about Clinton? In fact, Clinton backing down would be good for her, so she could pretend like she could reach across the aisle, since she ran as Republican-lite

>TPP is a trade deal that doesn't include China because China is pushing it's own trade deals in the region. The USA is trying to stay in the game.
Then it's not free trade. "trade between countries we allow to trade with us" isn't free trade, this isn't a difficult concept.

>It's still an expansion of his sphere of influence.
Fair enough, it is, but why should Majoritively Russian land be under the Russian sphere?

>Okay, so you assume. Use of nukes is going to cause escalation no matter what and put every nuclear power on red alert.
Use of tactical nukes against a "country" everybody (except Saudi, Qatar and Bahrain) hates isn't going to cause too much of an issue in that regard, the only question is whether it kills innocent civilians, but again, you can get smaller nukes.

>No, not really, you seemed to be implying ISIS deserves nukes,
I think they need to be stopped as soon as possible. If there's a camp where all the leaders are and conventional bombing can't reach them then, in that instance, I'd support it.

>The number of nukes is insignificant. Both still have more than enough nukes to obliterate the other. US foreign policy has been toothless with dealing with Russia, that's the truth of it. The globalist neoliberal don't want WWIII. They'd find a way to deescalate if a Russian plane did get shot down.
You can't recage the bear. Once you shoot down a Russian plane it's open season, that's why Turkey shooting one down over Turkish airspace was such an issue, despite it being their land. Because Turkey are in NATO and that pushes war closer. In the event American planes started shooting down Russian ones over Syria Russia would take it seriously.

>Trump on the other hand, would probably consider any dissent professional protestors and decide to launch nukes at 3AM just to spite them. Again, a tactical nuclrar strike on IS wouldn't be the end of the world.

>Then it's not free trade. "trade between countries we allow to trade with us" isn't free trade, this isn't a difficult concept.
You are somehow implying no TPP guarantees freer trade than TPP, which is retarded.

>Fair enough, it is, but why should Majoritively Russian land be under the Russian sphere?
Do you want Mexico to take taxes when it becomes majority Hispanic? These are world politics and strategic issues. I don't owe giving rights to Crimeans any more than I owe them to anyone in the Middle East.

>Use of tactical nukes against a "country" everybody (except Saudi, Qatar and Bahrain) hates isn't going to cause too much of an issue in that regard, the only question is whether it kills innocent civilians, but again, you can get smaller nukes.
Yes, actually it would. Everyone operates on the premise that nuclear arms are off the table. You're going to see at least DEFCON 3 or equivalent when nukes are used. Countries raise their alert levels when there's just nuclear tests.

>I think they need to be stopped as soon as possible. If there's a camp where all the leaders are and conventional bombing can't reach them then, in that instance, I'd support it.
I'm not sure you understand how a nuke works. If we knew they had a camp, there's pretty much no situation where conventional bombing wouldn't work. The only possible use for a nuke is if you knew they were in a large city somewhere and were willing to wipe the city off the map.

>You can't recage the bear. Once you shoot down a Russian plane it's open season, that's why Turkey shooting one down over Turkish airspace was such an issue, despite it being their land. Because Turkey are in NATO and that pushes war closer. In the event American planes started shooting down Russian ones over Syria Russia would take it seriously.
Yes you can. Putin doesn't want WWIII either.

>Again, a tactical nuclrar strike on IS wouldn't be the end of the world.
Any nuclear escalation is higher risk.

>You are somehow implying no TPP guarantees freer trade than TPP, which is retarded.
How is a world without protectionist trade blocks somehow freeer than a nation without them?

>Do you want Mexico to take taxes when it becomes majority Hispanic?
This is completely different. The Crimean peninsula was given to Ukraine in 1954 to make the internal borders look nicer. It was never Ukrainian majority.

>Yes, actually it would. Everyone operates on the premise that nuclear arms are off the table. You're going to see at least DEFCON 3 or equivalent when nukes are used. Countries raise their alert levels when there's just nuclear tests.
But nothing would actually happen. Russia wouldn't say 'Woah, America nuked ISIS, guess we have to nuke America now."

>Putin doesn't want WWIII either.
Neither does he want to lose power. He would rather authorise all out aerial war in Syria with the United States rather than appear weak.

>Any nuclear escalation is higher risk.
There is a higher risk of nuclear war shooting down Russian jets than there is nuking ISIS.

>How is a world without protectionist trade blocks somehow freeer than a nation without them?
Because then the countries start putting tariffs on things. Tariffs aren't trade deals. I really don't think you know what protectionism means.

>But nothing would actually happen. Russia wouldn't say 'Woah, America nuked ISIS, guess we have to nuke America now."
Then a no-fly zone wouldn't escalate into WWIII either.

>Neither does he want to lose power. He would rather authorise all out aerial war in Syria with the United States rather than appear weak.
He would rather threaten it, and the US would back down, because it's what the US does.

>There is a higher risk of nuclear war shooting down Russian jets than there is nuking ISIS.
No u, and yes, tactical nukes can result in escalation, it's been a major concern since the cold war.

You are kinda retarded. Syrian instability is profitable for all oil exporters. Aka russia, saudi arabia, usa and iran.

>trade deals
TPP isn't a trade deal, it's a bloc, like the EU, it's the opposite of free trade because anybody who wants to "trade freely" with TPP countries won't be allowed to.

>Then a no-fly zone wouldn't escalate into WWIII either.
This isn't a difficult concept. Nuking a country no body likes won't cause WW3, shooting down Russian planes will.

>He would rather threaten it, and the US would back down, because it's what the US does.
Putin didn't protect Gaddafi from NATO bombings.

>No u, and yes, tactical nukes can result in escalation, it's been a major concern since the cold war.
Tactical nukes between superpowers, not on ISIS. Nobody likes ISIS. Putin isn't going to say "How dare they attack poor innocent ISIS, they gud bois, they dindu nuffin!", Nobody will defend ISIS.

Please don't call people retarded on issues uou yourself don't comprehend.

Syria is where all the oil is shipped through. It's the cheapest, safest and all round best route to move it through, whilst this secure lane is blocked they'll get paid less for the oil due to anything from piracy to the simple cost of moving it on freight ships.

>"russia is a superpower"
>russia's economy is the size of spain's
>russia's sphere of influece extends to Belarus and Crimea
>super power
heh

> it's the opposite of free trade because anybody who wants to "trade freely" with TPP countries won't be allowed to.
No it isn't, we have other free trade agreements outside of TPP.

>This isn't a difficult concept. Nuking a country no body likes won't cause WW3, shooting down Russian planes will.
Nuking a country where Russia is involved will.

>Putin didn't protect Gaddafi from NATO bombings.
So? You're not even arguing anything anymore. We're talking about direct conflict between the US and Russia.

>Tactical nukes between superpowers, not on ISIS. Nobody likes ISIS. Putin isn't going to say "How dare they attack poor innocent ISIS, they gud bois, they dindu nuffin!", Nobody will defend ISIS.
Even if this is the case, Trump has been shown to be temperamental, and the codes to the nukes don't say for ISIS only on them.

Again, blocs that specifically lock countries out defy free trade because excluding them isn't free.

>Nuking a country where Russia is involved will.
Russia is fighting ISIS, by this logic Britain should have opposed the nuclear bombing of Japan.

>Even if this is the case, Trump has been shown to be temperamental, and the codes to the nukes don't say for ISIS only on them.
Trump may nuke ISIS because nobody likes ISIS. He isn't going to nuke a UN acknowledged sovereign state.

Except these pipelines don't even exist yet. And Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is nothing more but a wet dream of Iranians and Russians.

Nuking ISIS is virtually impossible. What do you even want to nuke if they are in many different cities and villages?

>Nuking ISIS is virtually impossible. What do you even want to nuke if they are in many different cities and villages?
I don't want to nuke ISIS, I'm saying a tactical nuclear strike wouldn't be the end of the world.

>Again, blocs that specifically lock countries out defy free trade because excluding them isn't free.
You are acting the the TTIP and TPP are mutually exclusive. They're companion agreements. TPP doesn't even exclude China, China just doesn't like the terms because it sees no benefit if it signs on.

>Russia is fighting ISIS, by this logic Britain should have opposed the nuclear bombing of Japan.
And Russia could choose not to fly planes if there's a no fly zone. Our relation to Russia in Syria is closer to our relation with Russia in WWII that Britain, and if Russia had nukes, and the nuke didn't end the war, it very well could have been a contentious issue. Nukes were a contentious issue even when we weren't in open war. You brought in Britain for no reason because it makes no sense.

>Trump may nuke ISIS because nobody likes ISIS. He isn't going to nuke a UN acknowledged sovereign state.
No one knows what the fuck Trump will do. He is all over the map in terms of what he says. He said he might not help NATO if Putin decides to expand west.

>I don't want to nuke ISIS, I'm saying a tactical nuclear strike wouldn't be the end of the world.
Neither would a no-fly zone. The differences between Russia and the US are not so irreconcilable, given that each has enough nuclear arms to completely and utterly destroy the other, as well as second strike capability, means neither power wants WWIII, and they will deescalate.

>You are acting the the TTIP and TPP are mutually exclusive. They're companion agreements. TPP doesn't even exclude China, China just doesn't like the terms because it sees no benefit if it signs on.
It was written specifically to undermine China so that they wouldn't want it, thereby keeping them out.

>And Russia could choose not to fly planes if there's a no fly zone.
Why should he? He's defending his ally against ISIS and "rebels", why should he have to stop doing that if the legitimate government of Syria still wants him to? In UN law that is Syrian airspace and so they should be allowed to conduct it how they like.

>Our relation to Russia in Syria is closer to our relation with Russia in WWII that Britain, and if Russia had nukes, and the nuke didn't end the war, it very well could have been a contentious issue.
Stalin didn't oppose the nuking of Japan either, just as Putin doesn't oppose the nuking of ISIS, the only reason he hasn't done it is because he'd either be nuking Syrian territory or Oraq, a US puppet state.

>Nukes were a contentious issue even when we weren't in open war.
Are you saying Syria isn't a warzone?

>No one knows what the fuck Trump will do. He is all over the map in terms of what he says. He said he might not help NATO if Putin decides to expand west.
Whatever he does he's not going to erect asinine no fly zones over Russia's allies for the express purpose of stopping them helping said ally.

Why escalate it with no fly zones in the first place?

>It was written specifically to undermine China so that they wouldn't want it, thereby keeping them out.
But it's not exclusionary, and China is pursuing it's own trade deals.

>Why should he? He's defending his ally against ISIS and "rebels", why should he have to stop doing that if the legitimate government of Syria still wants him to? In UN law that is Syrian airspace and so they should be allowed to conduct it how they like.
Which gives him the perfect chance to not start WWIII but instead humiliate the USA in the UN, just like the USA has tried to humiliate Russia in the UN with resolutions.

>Stalin didn't oppose the nuking of Japan either, just as Putin doesn't oppose the nuking of ISIS, the only reason he hasn't done it is because he'd either be nuking Syrian territory or Oraq, a US puppet state.
This is reason why both powers would be upset if nukes were used in their friendly territory.

>Are you saying Syria isn't a warzone?
You didn't quote me, yes the manner of weaponry can be a contentious issue, especially if it's a WMD of some kind, and we're not at total war with Syria.

>Whatever he does he's not going to erect asinine no fly zones over Russia's allies for the express purpose of stopping them helping said ally.
You are struggling very hard to make it sound like the end of the world.

>Why escalate it with no fly zones in the first place?
So it sounds like she has a plan, instead of admitting she has no plan and she'd just ask the generals for advice on how to fight a long and unpopular war. Hillary would actually be concerned enough if there were massive protests to not go through with it, since she really couldn't have snuck it under the radar until it was too late.

>Why escalate it with no fly zones in the first place?
Because Russia and America have to compete in perpetual pissing matches to keep the balance of power. If one side is weak and always backs down, the aggressive one is going to gradually win. The only way to stop this is have both sides stop having the pissing match. Game theory.

>But it's not exclusionary, and China is pursuing it's own trade deals.
It was written to exclude them, it's akin to Austria's ultimatum to Serbia in it's unappetising nature.

>Which gives him the perfect chance to not start WWIII but instead humiliate the USA in the UN, just like the USA has tried to humiliate Russia in the UN with resolutions.
The UN is a fucking playground. Obama could shit in Putin's tea and NATO would still back him, it was designed for cooperation but it ended up just being NATO ruling the roost.

>This is reason why both powers would be upset if nukes were used in their friendly territory.
America doesn't care about Iraq outside of "You can't hit my kid, only I can do that." Trump would happily nuke Mosul if it helped defeat ISIS.

>You didn't quote me, yes the manner of weaponry can be a contentious issue, especially if it's a WMD of some kind, and we're not at total war with Syria.
Nukes aren't all Tsar Bombas, they can be as small as conventional bombs.

>You are struggling very hard to make it sound like the end of the world.
Do you honestly think Putin would just say "Haha, gg no re" after having his jets shot down by Americans over Syria? He was close to kicking Turkey's shit in for shooting a plane down over THEIR territory. He wouldn't tolerate it over his ally's.

>So it sounds like she has a plan, instead of admitting she has no plan and she'd just ask the generals for advice on how to fight a long and unpopular war. Hillary would actually be concerned enough if there were massive protests to not go through with it, since she really couldn't have snuck it under the radar until it was too late.
The general public don't care about any of this shit, though, Syria is considered "over there" and as such not an issue internationally. Nobody condemned her plans for the no fly zones because they don't realise the implications therein.

Let's hope that can finally happen, during the Trump administration atleast.

Added picture

>they can be as small as conventional bombs
Do you even know what a WMD is? If you can use a conventional non-radiological bomb to do the same thing, then you don't need a nuke.

Also it's not going to happen. If anything, Trump being weak in confronting Russia is going to just embolden Putin because he knows Trump is always going to pussy out. It really can't happen until Russia wants it to happen because Russia has more to gain, and America has more to lose. Trump isn't demanding a deal, he's just straight up saying he's going to pussy out when it comes to Russia. That's how you are guaranteed to lose a prisoner's dilemma.

>iran
>trump talks about bombing iran.
eric.

>people unironically believe the "putin controls trump" tinfoil conspiracy
>people actually believe a "world war 3" is possible in the current world

how embarassing

You're struggling very hard to make it sound like the president actually has the final say in the nukes flying.

>Another thread shit up by election discussions.

The Bear Trap did the USSR in more than his reforms.

Trump benefiting Putin and being a useful idiot is different from Putin controlling Trump. It's more like Putin is leading him by the nose.

He does.

embarassing

Not until it actually happens

Unless his generals and advisors go full goy it's happening.

>The point of stuff like TPP was for American trade supremacy in the Pacific and infringe on China's regional influence.

TPP was not going to do that though. That's simply a talking point.

>TPP isn't protectionism

It's definitely not free trade though.

>TPP is a trade deal that doesn't include China because China is pushing it's own trade deals in the region.

The TPP existed before any Chinese regional trade deal (RCEP or its past version).