Trump's offer to Putin: an end to sanctions for nuclear arms cut


#1

Trump’s offer to Putin: an end to sanctions for nuclear arms cut - London Times reut.rs/2jmTo0l


#2

Sucker deal. Why would Putin need nuclear weapons if the world allows his territorial conquests.


#3

If the sanctions are unjust, which I think they probably are, it would be the right thing to remove them, but I like that he is also trying to curb the Nuclear arms race too. I think it would be a good deal. The less Nuclear weapons floating about the better, I think Putin also wishes to curb this Nuclear arms race also. I think it’s been due to the NATO expansion against Russia that has incentivized them with their Nuclear arms race.

Having the Ukraine or Finland as a part of NATO so that the US could park whatever military equipment they wanted on Russia’s border (Such as Anti Missile Defense Systems) would be pretty outrageous if I were Russian.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#4

Territorial conquests? lol.

If your referring to the Ukraine/Crimea (Which is the only ones I can think of you might be referring to) then I can sympathies with Russia here, now that I have learned that Obama’s Administration wanted the Ukraine/Crimea to become a part of NATO. Imagine if the roles were reversed and it were Mexico or Canada who were going to become a part of a Russian alliance where they could park whatever military equipment they wanted on the US border? (And especially if Russia was encouraging civil unrest in a place like Mexico so that an Alliance would be more likely in order to hold the US hostage).

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#5

youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo


#6

This is not hard.

NATO already has member nations that border Russia.
Russia does not like this, not because of any threat of invasion from Estonia, Latvia, etc., but because it unwilling to give up its own hegemonic ambitions against them.
The interest that these countries have in NATO is protection from authoritarian Russia, which opposes freedom and justice. The US has worked with NGO interested in advancing freedom and justice in states of the former Soviet Union.

There are reasonable parallel to the relationship between the US and its neighbors.
If, on the other hand, the US went authoritarian and expressed territorial ambitions against Canada, then there would be a parallel; I would not be surprised if France and England aided Canada in resisting us.


#7

Trump’s foreign policy concepts seem similar to Nixon’s; demonstrate strength and resolution to the adversary but offer face-saving lines of retreat. It helps if everyone is on the same page and maintains disciplined statecraft. His unpredictable tweets may be the wildcard.


#8

Huh? We surrender to your territorial ambitions if you abandon weapons that, since the surrender, you no longer need!

Here is something to read from McFaul,

washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/donald-trump-and-ronald-reagan-could-not-be-more-different-on-foreign-policy/2016/09/23/e0e4ec68-819e-11e6-8327-f141a7beb626_story.html?postshare=691484457642058&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.4add2b04ee62


#9

My perspective of what Trump’s foreign policy concepts may be does not disagree with a point in the article that it’s differs from Reagan’s foreign policy concept.

From what I have read, I’d suggest, Mike Pence, Rex Tillerson and Gen. Mattis all subscribe to different foreign policy concepts than Trump does.


#10

We all hope.


#11

I do hope Trump is open to the recommendations and experience he can tap from his cabinet. He made the final selections, so I’ll have some hope he does.

Though, as with many Republicans, I’ll remain critical of some of those Tweets that throw individuals, agencies or companies under the bus – especially the reactive retaliatory ones. It shows weakness and unwittingly gives spy agencies around the world an economical mechanism to gather info and better predict decisions and reactions of the Commander-in-Chief. He needs more discipline in that specific role.


#12

youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo


#13

Frankly, very few will spend the time watching a video with no tease.

Can you generally summarize the content?


#14

It only goes for 12 minutes and id very much recommend watching the whole thing.

Granted, I should have titled it.

Putin’s Warning: Full Speech 2016 - youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#15

As far as I am concerned, NATO has no business being on Russia’s borders today, they need to back off a bit, and if Russia advances against a border nation that is not a part of NATO (nor becoming a part of NATO), then and only then can one justify it.

At the moment, it’s simply the NATO alliance that is aggressing against Russia, and encouraging civil unrest and other such tactics to gain an advantage against Russia in this endeavor of trying to hold Russia hostage with NATO.

Not to mention, if all these people are part of NATO and one of them does something stupid, than welcome to WWIII.

How to find the correct balance, that may be a more difficult discussion, but if I were Russian, I would be saying the same thing.

Just look at the Cuban Missile crisis, so to justify this against Russia is just pure hypocrisy, they probably tried to claim the USA was advancing against them too and that it was a defensive measure.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#16

So a military invasion is an appropriate response to a sovereign republic choosing to enter into a military alliance?


#17

Didn’t they vote? Granted Russia’s end goal was probably the same and the vote was simply fortunate.

Nevertheless, could you blame them? If they did this when that Country had no intention of becoming a part of NATO, I would absolutely agree with you and Russia would be clearly wrong, but if the US was encouraging civil unrest and trying to get that State to become a part of NATO so that the US could park whatever military equipment they wanted right on Russia’s border (directly threatening Russia) than if I were Russian, that would be unacceptable.

If that’s the game we want to play, than I wonder how the US would feel when Russia gets an eye for places like Cuba again, or perhaps Mexico, and when an opportunity presents itself, tries to establish an alliance with Cuba for another Cuban Missile Crisis.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#18

You a bit late to the party. They already have.

At the moment, it’s simply the NATO alliance that is aggressing against Russia, and encouraging civil unrest and other such tactics to gain an advantage against Russia in this endeavor of trying to hold Russia hostage with NATO.

The US has attempted to build better relations with Russia in all of the the last administrations. It had not worked out because of their opposition to freedom and justice, and their aggression against neighbors.

Not to mention, if all these people are part of NATO and one of them does something stupid, than welcome to WWIII.

A strong and unified NATO is the has been, and with Putin, remains the best deterrent to WWIII.

Just look at the Cuban Missile crisis, so to justify this against Russia is just pure hypocrisy …

You apparently do not get the fact that what Russia stands for and what we stand for a very different. There is no moral equivalence of our actions. Russia went to beat in the Cuban missle crisis to protect a terrible totalitarian regime. We are defending freedom for our NATO partners Estonia and Latvia.


#19

Josh,

Nations have every right to form alliances they determine best serves their national security. The consequences of such alliances need to be weighed.

Putin took advantage of strategic leverage with Georgia, Crimea and East Ukraine. He needs to be more careful with some other countries in the region. Regardless of the President-elects tone, if Putin crosses the line in a NATO ally Putin may be reminded how the balance of power isn’t so balanced.

It’s better for all if countries in that region are more appropriately lobbied for partnerships.

As far as missile defense and the strategic balance is concerned - I do not subscribe to Mutual assured destruction (MAD) anymore. That ship sailed with North Korea and Iran.


#20

Yes, and I credit Obama’s administration and the advancement of NATO toward Russia for that. Like I said, I seriously doubt the same thing would have happened had the US with NATO not tried to advance against Russia and essential become a major threat to them by Anti Missile Defense systems on their border.

Not Obama’s administration, there is perhaps a chance for Trumps administration though.

If they were still the USSR and a communist Country, I would believe you, but they are not.

Not when NATO is advancing and essentially backing them into a corner, where it will inevitably result in a fight or surrender situation.

USSR, yes, today, not as much.

Russia simply sought an opportunity in a neighboring Country like Cuba, which is what NATO is doing toward Russia.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.