H.R. McMaster: "Russia is trying to 'break apart Europe' with disinformation and propaganda"

[goldenequity]

Establishment interviewing itself. (The 'selling' of McMaster... any buyers?)


H.R. McMaster: "Russia is trying to 'break apart Europe' with disinformation and propaganda"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dt3pwh1kFU

[Swordsmyth]

"Russia is trying to 'break apart Europe' with the truth" might be true and is none of our business.

[r3volution 3.0]

Russia clearly is trying to break up the EU, by supporting the New Nationalism over there.

...and driving a wedge between the EU and the US by supporting the same here.

Given the threat they rationally perceive from the US/EU, it's understandable; it's still not good for the world.

P.S. Better outcome: US stops harrassing Russia, tempers cool, Russia eventually joins the EU.

[jkr]

too late!

[goldenequity]

You notice how quickly he dismisses questions of blunt US military interventions. (Venezuela etc.)
Of course he does.
That's 20th century thinking.
In the 21st century we insurrect by proxy, ratlines & black ops and he very well knows it.


Nigel Farage promoted anti-EU Nationalism. Stinkin commie. :eek:

[William Tell]

Break it up into independent nations like Europe was since the dawn of time? How radical.

[r3volution 3.0]

Break it up into independent nations like Europe was since the dawn of time? How radical.

The last European war killed 60 million people and cost a third of world GDP ($25 trillion in today's terms).

...important to keep in mind the other side of the scale.

[Origanalist]

The last European war killed 60 million people and cost a third of world GDP ($25 trillion in today's terms).

...important to keep in mind the other side of the scale.

And we should have stayed out of it, just like the one before it.

[Swordsmyth]

The last European war killed 60 million people and cost a third of world GDP ($25 trillion in today's terms).

...important to keep in mind the other side of the scale.
Which is more likely to produce a major war, an EU empire that thinks it can take on Russia or a divided Europe that can't?

[AuH20]

Russia is trying to restore balance to the global order. But never tell the CIA and their puppet states different.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/


Nor are many aware of declassified documents from the State Department archives showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project.

As this newspaper first reported when the treasure became available, one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency.

The key CIA front was the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), chaired by Donovan. Another document shows that it provided 53.5 per cent of the European movement's funds in 1958. The board included Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles, CIA directors in the Fifties, and a caste of ex-OSS officials who moved in and out of the CIA.

Papers show that it treated some of the EU's 'founding fathers' as hired hands, and actively prevented them finding alternative funding that would have broken reliance on Washington.

[r3volution 3.0]

And we should have stayed out of it, just like the one before it.

...not really the point, but I agree (at least with respect to the first one, our involvement in which largely caused the second one).


Which is more likely to produce a major war, an EU empire that thinks it can take on Russia or a divided Europe that can't?

The latter

War between Russia and Germany, or Russia and Poland, etc, is much more likely than between Russia and the EU.

Not to mention war among EU members.

[Swordsmyth]

...not really the point, but I agree (at least with respect to the first one, our involvement in which largely caused the second one).



The latter

War between Russia and Germany, or Russia and Poland, etc, is much more likely than between Russia and the EU.

Not to mention war among EU members.

I said a MAJOR war.
Entangling alliances lead to MAJOR wars, they raise the stakes and delay resolution of grievances until they have built up to much greater heights.

[r3volution 3.0]

I said a MAJOR war.

That's what I was describing.


Entangling alliances lead to MAJOR wars, they raise the stakes and delay resolution of grievances until they have built up to much greater heights.

A post EU Europe wouldn't certainly not be a series of isolated states; alliances would form once again.

[Swordsmyth]

That's what I was describing.
"War between Russia and Germany, or Russia and Poland, etc" is not a Major war unless others get involved.



A post EU Europe wouldn't certainly not be a series of isolated states; alliances would form once again.
But they would be smaller and have to worry about more enemies, and therefore less likely to go to war, and if they did the war would be smaller.

[Origanalist]

...not really the point, but I agree (at least with respect to the first one, our involvement in which largely caused the second one).



The latter

War between Russia and Germany, or Russia and Poland, etc, is much more likely than between Russia and the EU.

Not to mention war among EU members.

Germany is highly unlikely to go to war with Russia, been there done that remember? Are you suggesting Russia is likely to invade Germany? Poland? You can't possibly think Poland intends on hostilities with Russia.

[r3volution 3.0]

"War between Russia and Germany, or Russia and Poland, etc" is not a Major war unless others get involved.

I guess we have different definitions of "major."

Did the last war between Germany and Russia qualify?


But they would be smaller and have to worry about more enemies, and therefore less likely to go to war, and if they did the war would be smaller.

I don't know why you'd think that.

[r3volution 3.0]

Germany is highly unlikely to go to war with Russia, been there done that remember? Are you suggesting Russia is likely to invade Germany? Poland? You can't possibly think Poland intends on hostilities with Russia.

Why do any states ever go war?

[Swordsmyth]

I guess we have different definitions of "major."

Did the last war between Germany and Russia qualify?
It was major only because most of the rest of the world was involved, without that it would not have been major or minor just average.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know why you'd think that.
Why would you not?

[William Tell]

Germany won't be in the mood to get their asses kicked again for a good 200 years.

[r3volution 3.0]

It was major only because most of the rest of the world was involved, without that it would not have been major or minor just average.

:confused: It killed 30 million people, half the total.

The war in W. Europe and the Mediterranean was trivial in comparison.

Excepting massive Chinese losses, the eastern front accounts for almost all causalities from the entire war.


Why would you not?

The same reason I don't believe "trees have leaves, therefore trees are less than 10ft tall."

It's a non sequitur. There's no reason to think smaller states are less likely to go to war.

[Origanalist]

Why do any states ever go war?

Poland is not going to start hostilities with Russia. Flat out. Any of these scenarios would necessarily have Russia being the aggressor. Not that I think that is out of the realm of possibility but I'm not seeing any indication of that currently. Now a solidified and empowered EU is another story altogether.

[r3volution 3.0]

Poland is not going to start hostilities with Russia. Flat out.

Of course not. The risk is rather the other way round.


Any of these scenarios would necessarily have Russia being the aggressor.

Not necessarily. Germany alone, or several states together might think they can win a war against Russia.

Of course, none of this matters as long as MAD is in effect. The issue would be once MAD is rendered obsolete by new missile defense technology.

...which will happen, sooner or later.


Not that I think that is out of the realm of possibility but I'm not seeing any indication of that currently. Now a solidified and empowered EU is another story altogether.

Absent the EU or NATO restraining them, Russia would have invaded and annexed Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania yesterday.

[Swordsmyth]

It killed 30 million people, half the total.

The war in W. Europe and the Mediterranean was trivial in comparison.

Excepting massive Chinese losses, the eastern front accounts for almost all causalities from the entire war.




That was because of the ideologies involved not the scale of the conflict, also the USSR was the equivalent of the EU, it was not just Russia, the same can be said to a lesser degree of Gross Deutchland and it's allies, it was not just Germany.

[Swordsmyth]

The same reason I don't believe "trees have leaves, therefore trees are less than 10ft tall."

It's a non sequitur. There's no reason to think smaller states are less likely to go to war.

How many wars have been started by smaller countries? How many by larger ones?
And those between smaller ones are always smaller wars.

[Swordsmyth]

Absent the EU or NATO restraining them, Russia would have invaded and annexed Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania yesterday.
If that happened those would be small wars, and they would tie down Russia trying to occupy and subdue those countries thus reducing the odds that the war would expand.

[r3volution 3.0]

How many wars have been started by smaller countries? How many by larger ones?

Who starts the wars is a function of the relative size of the states, not their absolute size.

It's not that small states are less bellicose, it's that they have no hope of winning; they don't attack, they get attacked.

Either way, there's war.


And those between smaller ones are always smaller wars.

Sure, but they're also more frequent.

[r3volution 3.0]

If that happened those would be small wars, and they would tie down Russia trying to occupy and subdue those countries thus reducing the odds that the war would expand.

You must lend me your crystal ball.

[Swordsmyth]

Who starts the wars is a function of the relative size of the states, not their absolute size.

It's not that small states are less bellicose, it's that they have no hope of winning; they don't attack, they get attacked.

Either way, there's war.
Some of each factor is involved, but if you reduce the size of all the states in question they are less likely to go to war, smaller states feel the risks of war more keenly and have more neighbors to worry about if they weaken themselves by going to war with the first one.




Sure, but they're also more frequent.
I disagree, see above.

[Swordsmyth]

You must lend me your crystal ball.
It's called logic, you were the one who pronounced what Russia would do without much evidence, I simply extrapolated what would be the likely result if they did as you prognosticated.

[r3volution 3.0]

Some of each factor is involved, but if you reduce the size of all the states in question they are less likely to go to war, smaller states feel the risks of war more keenly and have more neighbors to worry about if they weaken themselves by going to war with the first one.

I think you're forgetting that size is relative.

Tell me which of the following geopolitical systems is more likely to experience war:

5815

5815

Wait, they're the same. The balance of power is the same. The risks/costs of wars for any given state are the same.

...except now imagine that the scale on the second map is 1/10 that of the first.

Does anything change? Nope. The factors you cite are a function of relative, not absolute size.


It's called logic

I'd call it wishful thinking.

It's as if you think the "deep state" (if I may use that slogan) behind the EU is the only cause of war.

As if the governments of the member states or Russia are populated by peaceniks.

As if a post-EU world would somehow be the sole exception to what we've observed everywhere throughout human history.

[Raginfridus]

Russia clearly is trying to break up the EU, by supporting the New Nationalism over there.

...and driving a wedge between the EU and the US by supporting the same here.I doubt that's the case, since Russian international business can better integrate with the EU's mandatory trade and financial lattice, than it could with dozens of capricious sovereign states.

[Swordsmyth]

I think you're forgetting that size is relative.

Tell me which of the following geopolitical systems is more likely to experience war:

5815

5815

Wait, they're the same. The balance of power is the same. The risks/costs of wars for any given state are the same.

...except now imagine that the scale on the second map is 1/10 that of the first.

Does anything change? Nope. The factors you cite are a function of relative, not absolute size.
No the population gets smaller in absolute terms, this increases the "felt" risks of war, it also reduces the size of any wars.
Also your example shrank the world along with the states, therefore no new states were formed when the size was reduced, which is an important factor in why smaller states are less likely to go to war and why they tend to restrict the size and destruction of wars they do start.




I'd call it wishful thinking.

It's as if you think the "deep state" (if I may use that slogan) behind the EU is the only cause of war.

As if the governments of the member states or Russia are populated by peaceniks.

As if a post-EU world would somehow be the sole exception to what we've observed everywhere throughout human history.
You have lost track of this line of argument.
You said Russia WOULD HAVE invaded a list of countries (a prognostication), and I replied that IF that happened they would be small wars (a fact) and they would tie down the Russians occupying and subduing them, reducing their ability to go to war with others (a logical probability).

[r3volution 3.0]

@Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299)

I think we're going in circles at this point.


I doubt that's the case, since Russian international business can better integrate with the EU's mandatory trade and financial lattice, than it could with dozens of capricious sovereign states.

The aim of the Russian policy IMO is to change the balance of power in Europe, in order to at least keep its enemies out of Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia, if not reverse the verdict of the last several decades and drive them out of the Baltic states or beyond. I would think that business considerations would be a distant, secondary concern.

[dannno]

you were the one who pronounced what Russia would do without much evidence

But the CNN told him they would do that..