Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on August 12, 2016, 10:56:07 AM
-
Is Russia really our arch enemy?
Just how expansionist are they planning to be?
Are they actually a threat to western Europe let alone us?
Is there a strategic reason that they have to be our enemy?
Trump seems to be the only one who isn't fear and war mongering about Russia.
grampster posted this link up and it reminded me that I wanted to get your guys opinion on Russia.
http://fredoneverything.org/hillary-trump-and-war-with-russia-the-goddamdest-stupid-idea-i-have-ever-heard-and-i-have-lived-in-washington/
-
"Fern bar." I had to look that one up.
-
Well... we are actually vastly superior to the rest of the world militarily.
And for every way the U.S. military is hamstrung by the latest PC gobbeldygook, the graft* of the military/industrial complex and PowerPoint, every other non-allied (kinda-sorta) peer military is a decapitated puppet due to inherent authoritarianism and graft of the societies from which they spring.
Of course Fred is completely correct that a needless war with Russia or China is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. And he's also right that Democrats are the ones statistically the most likely to get us into one too. And that Democrats with "something to prove", be it doddering old Socialists, or first female POTUS with a historically bad disposition and now some TBI on top of it all are even more dangerous. But Fred's point that Russia has a T34 Armata tank as some sort of scare tactic to make his point is sophistry.
Russia has maybe produced 20 of them so far? And the Saudi/Fracking oil-war has emptied Putin's wallet. The proxy war in Ukraine and the Syrian deployment is pretty much the maximum that Russia can afford.
That we all have Nukes and ICBM's, and sub launched SSBN's ought to be enough. Trying to gin up some fake technological OPFOR parity in the conventional war space just weakens his argument.
(*America at least mainly practices "luxury graft", with even bigger better systems that we don't really need, when arguably shoring up, upgrading, or producing more of existing older systems is possibly better. But at least with "luxury graft" America still gets something for it, whereas more traditional 2nd/3rd world military plain ol' graft-graft just reduces capabilities.)
-
Is Russia really our arch enemy?
Just how expansionist are they planning to be?
Are they actually a threat to western Europe let alone us?
Is there a strategic reason that they have to be our enemy?
Trump seems to be the only one who isn't fear and war mongering about Russia.
grampster posted this link up and it reminded me that I wanted to get your guys opinion on Russia.
http://fredoneverything.org/hillary-trump-and-war-with-russia-the-goddamdest-stupid-idea-i-have-ever-heard-and-i-have-lived-in-washington/
Russia is a problem because we have projected weakness and fecklessness. Had we not spent the last 15 years getting worn out by goat humping troglodytes and the last 7 in spasms of impotent violence, Russia would not be menacing the Baltic and would have thought more about Ossetia, Ukraine, and the Crimean Peninsula. (IMO, Russia would have gone for the Crimean Peninsula even if the USA was stronger, given a non-Russia-friendly regime in Ukraine.) Not that the USA's actions dictate Russian re-actions. Russia is not what it once was and only got strategic elbow room because of the USA's geopolitical diminution.
Our ruling class is infected with the tribal hatreds the neocons have toward ethnic Russians as well as a sick crusading mentality to fight World War G and World War T overseas.
In a more sane world where the USA had a sane, non-evil ruling class that looked after the interests of America, Americans, and the West in general, the USA and Russia would be natural allies against the anti-civilizational nations to the south of Europe & Russia. The differences between the American nation and Russians are much less than those between either of them and the forces of evil and savagery to the south. It takes a concerted effort to maintain the antagonism between us.
Russia can not now afford to buy lots of Armata (T-14/T-15) based armor. But their standard up-to-date T-90 tanks and BMP-3 systems are plenty capable. And while the sum totals of our respective militaries favors the USA, Russia has internal lines of commo and can place what they have where they need it PDQ. Meanwhile, the Baltic nations have spent bupkis on their militaries and we have about a single battalion of Abrams back in Europe.
The best way to keep Russia in check is:
1. Quit being impulsively, ineffectually violent in places where American interests are not at stake. The wise & strong avoid needless fights, the foolish & weak are forever fighting for nothing.
2. Open the M-Fing oil spigot. Drill, baby drill! Frack that F-er up. Build the Keystone pipeline and 5 more like it to get Canada doing the same. Drive oil prices to rock bottom. Sell that stuff everyowhere. Without oil revenues, Russia and Saudi and Iran can't afford to be aggressive.
A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia.
This plus eleventy
This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.
Looking at wars and hte road to wars as rational activities will leave one astray. Hatred, honor, greed, and such are better guides.
The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified
Indeed.
The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn’t fought a war in seventy years. It doesn’t know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups.
China is another kettle of fish. But the thing is, no one knows how well Chinese (or Russian, but especially Chinese) hardware will work. Not just performance specs, but actually just fire off. And of Russia's vaunted numbers of tanks in WWII, half never made it to the battlefield, breaking down along the way.
-
2. Open the M-Fing oil spigot. Drill, baby drill! Frack that F-er up. Build the Keystone pipeline and 5 more like it to get Canada doing the same. Drive oil prices to rock bottom. Sell that stuff everyowhere. Without oil revenues, Russia and Saudi and Iran can't afford to be aggressive.
That also has the positive side effects of making arabs *expletive deleted*it their robes and destabilizing south american dictatorships.
-
When it comes down to it, what I see are Russia and even China trying to control things near their own borders. Russia is probably meddling further away than China. We on the other hand are meddling on the other side of the world for little actual gain. I just try to figure what our reaction would be if Mexico or Canada were pissed at us and trying to form a military alliance with China or Russia. We wouldn't be too happy about that.
If Europe or at least the other NATO countries still had strong militaries (for their size) we might have less reason to get involved.
-
When it comes down to it, what I see are Russia and even China trying to control things near their own borders. Russia is probably meddling further away than China. We on the other hand are meddling on the other side of the world for little actual gain. I just try to figure what our reaction would be if Mexico or Canada were pissed at us and trying to form a military alliance with China or Russia. We wouldn't be too happy about that.
If Europe or at least the other NATO countries still had strong militaries (for their size) we might have less reason to get involved.
China has a big presence in Mexico, central and south America. Not military of course but they have vested interests they would want to protect.
-
Russia is not the enemy. Putin is the enemy. He (and his cronies) is the driving force behind Russian expansionism.
-
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives thought communist dictatorships were the enemy.
-
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives thought communist dictatorships were the enemy.
Sending our troops off to fight prolonged police actions for decades at a time tends to sap that feeling and gets people asking why we are fighting at all.
Honestly, is Russia really our enemy or is it just that our allies who have to deal with them have gutted their own military to the point they can't offer credible opposition. I wouldn't call them friend, but I doubt people fear a Communist invasion or nuclear attack like people did in the 1980's. When I talk about stuff local to Russia, I mean Ukraine and Georgia. Do we really want to threaten a shooting war in a country bordering Russia? Afghanistan is bad enough and I would pull out of there also.
-
If anything can be said about the current state of affairs, the US has become an aggressor and instigator. The US is waaaaaaaay over bounds. So yeah, Russia may be an enemy, but they aren't the ones stoking the flames.
-
Obama, Hillary and the NeoCons really seem to be ramping up the anti Russia rhetoric.
-
Russia isn't the enemy, Putin is. Who here expects him to give up power when his term is up?
-
Russia isn't the enemy, Putin is. Who here expects him to give up power when his term is up?
Out of curiosity, just what makes him our enemy more than any other leader of a state that has its own interests?
-
Because he doesn't have Russia's interests at heart, just his own hunger for power.
-
Russia isn't the enemy, Putin is. Who here expects him to give up power when his term is up?
No one...given that he didn't before when he went from president to PM and back...and the Russians seem to be okay with it.
-
Because he doesn't have Russia's interests at heart, just his own hunger for power.
Because like gwb you can see into his heart.
-
Because he doesn't have Russia's interests at heart, just his own hunger for power.
While I don't doubt for a moment his hunger for power I think you may be mistaken regarding his looking out for Russian interests.
-
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
The Dems are finding a new enemy so that they can downplay any danger from the mid east/radical islamists without giving up any of the "OMG EMERGANCY!!!" powers.
-
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
The Dems are finding a new enemy so that they can downplay any danger from the mid east/radical islamists without giving up any of the "OMG EMERGANCY!!!" powers.
Close.
Dems and neocons point and shriek at russia to distract from the fact that they are the real enemy of americans and much more likely to harm americans than russia is.
When was the last time putin threatened to take away my rkba? When was the last time putin fined someone in america for not buying health insurance? When was the last time an illegal alien he ushered in at the behest of globalists murdered an american?
Putin would not be mak8ng any noise had we not been frittering away combat power and prestige the last 8 years. He is only marginally a threat now because the body politic is weak and ailing.
-
Close.
Dems and neocons point and shriek at russia to distract from the fact that they are the real enemy of americans and much more likely to harm americans than russia is.
When was the last time putin threatened to take away my rkba? When was the last time putin fined someone in america for not buying health insurance? When was the last time an illegal alien he ushered in at the behest of globalists murdered an american?
My thoughts as well. It's often been noted that Dem. politicians treat Americans like the enemy. It's time we woke up, and returned the favor.
-
If anything can be said about the current state of affairs, the US has become an aggressor and instigator. The US is waaaaaaaay over bounds. So yeah, Russia may be an enemy, but they aren't the ones stoking the flames.
This, so much. NATO needs to go away, and we need to stop meddling in their backyard.
-
This, so much. NATO needs to go away, and we need to stop meddling in their backyard.
IMO even NATO itself isn't an issue. It's only issue because NATO got stupid and we let in a lot of countries that have no real reason to be there, other than to piss in Russia's Stalin Puffs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
A couple of things:
Didn't Hillary herself give Putin a stolen, badly translated "Reset" button as a sign of a new relationship with Putin and Russia?
Didn't she then give 20% of US Uranium reserves to Russia in exchange for a highly paid speech by Bill to the Russians?
Did Romney get chastised in a debate for his "Cold War Thinking/Outlook" toward Russia?
Having said all that, the biggest mistake we made after the Cold War was NOT inviting Russia to join NATO and still treating Russia as the bad guys.
I'm sure Rev will chime in, but given Russia's historical outlook (feeling inferior and paranoid), bringing it into the warm embrace of NATO would have done much to allay those fears and feelings. And would have done much to prevent the "unpleasantness" with Ukraine, Georgia, and the Crimea. (That and us not mucking about in Ukrainian elections.)
So Hillary has to create a ready-made "bad guy" as a good buddy of her opponent, even though her (and her campaign manager) have benefited more and directly from Putin and Russia, then anything Trump could have done as a private individual....
-
Is Russia really our arch enemy?
Us no, Killary yes.
We really just need to trade more with them both ways.
When the populace of mother Russia starts to like the US and there "good stuff" the political climate will change.
-
After reading this thread again since it got resurrected, and digesting the reasonable commentary herein, makes me once again fall back on the Wisdom of Wm F. Buckley.
https://youtu.be/2nf_bu-kBr4
-
It's hilarious how the media can be aghast that Russia is in the Ukraine, yet debate the importance to human rights of US missions in Yemen.
It is truly 1984.
-
Yes, and I would trust the motives of those 2000 phone book people more than I would the Harvard faculty.
There is still talk about war with Russia and I don't understand it. Russia has nothing to gain by nuclear war unless we won't or can't retaliate. We have little to gain either. IMO, it is just political distraction during the election. I bet some Dem advisers think Hillary looks better when dealing with foreign policy.
-
Having said all that, the biggest mistake we made after the Cold War was NOT inviting Russia to join NATO and still treating Russia as the bad guys.
We did float an invitation, but it wasn't ever taken seriously by either side. A PR stunt for us, and it was probably counter-productive, with Russia largely seeing it as an insult, and a statement that the U.S. and NATO now saw them as weak after the dissolution of the USSR.
There is less than zero chance Russia would have ever joined NATO, at any time whatsoever between the dissolution of the USSR and the rise of Putin. None. Nada. Zilch.
1. What is the simplest and strongest reason, it would completely go against Russia's national/cultural identity seeing themselves as a superpower, or a one-time superpower, or being a superpower again.
2. (perhaps a subset of #1..) It would completely negate Russian ambitions in the region or the world, even if they could or otherwise wanted to participate in NATO, they wouldn't be able to prop up Syria, Iran, or push the levers of power as they saw fit.
3. No matter what kind of assurances or "seat at the table" or a U.N. Security Council-like veto power. Russia was given within NATO, everyone knows that NATO is run by the United States and all it's other members are to some degree or another subordinate, and Russia would never ever stand for it. And even if some sort of iron-clad deal could be worked out to make Russia on a "more equal than others" standing like the U.S. enjoys, they'd always fear that NATO integration and politics would eventually weaken them into subordinate status. Or, they know full well the other NATO members would never take orders from Russia like they do the U.S.
4. Arguably, probably the most pragmatic and strategic reason if all the political and cultural ones could be swept aside... If they joined NATO, and not in some flim-flam way, but really joined NATO, at the same level of inclusion as the U.S. and the U.K. have... there's no way China would stand for it. And Russia would be in the uncomfortable position of sharing something like 4-5000 miles of border with China as a NATO member. And if America/Japan/Taiwan etc. got into a hot-war with China, Russia would be dragged into it.
5. NATO member states (Well... except for Turkey I guess, but we wanted IRBM's and bombers on the USSR's doorstep.) are all relatively open democracies or representational or parliamentary republics of one sort or another that has ultimate civilian control over their militaries. The civilian government determines the funding and the broad strategic and smaller tactical goals of their nations militaries. Russia never ever had a time in it's existence since the Czars where that was the case, where the military has always functioned as a de-facto branch of their government either under Communism and the USSR or now under the Russian Federation. And to try and get Russia's military completely subordinate to civilian control would stand a good chance of creating a coup.
I agree it would be cool if we could get Russia into the fold, and kinda-sorta set up the "CoDominium" like in the Jerry Pournelle military sci-fi novels, and keep the rest of the world (especially China) in check, and never have any part of it ever act up into a broader hot-war again, but it just isn't in the cards.
-
It's impossible to get Russia into the fold because their leaders are too geopolitically strong, meaning they will always want a real voice for their constituents. You can't have that while being part of NATO, or the EU.
-
I'm in favor of winding down our worldwide military occupation of the planet.
Being an empire doesn't seem to be in our best national interest.
-
"The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters."
Pretty much hits the nail on the head. We don't need a war with Russia. We don't want an optional war with Russia. We do need to keep them from invading an occupying most of Europe, again. If for no other reason than giving them that sort of resources is not exactly in our best interests. Hence the entire point of NATO. If we gin up another optional war, it will not end well. Russia isn't a bunch of people hiding in caves using former Soviet munitions smuggled in from mainly third world nations with some second world donations. These are the people that MADE those weapons, and have insane stockpiles laying around.
Even if we quadrupled the size of our Army, cut our military graft to the bone (lol, good luck) and had an excellent fighter portfolio, it would make Afghanistan and Iraq look like a day in the park. We have never gone to war directly with a nuclear power. For good reason. We try to fight people that can't do more than annoy us. Do you really think the American people want to start a war with a country that can nuke our cities? Potentially the majority of them?
Even IF Russia fully invaded Europe, I'd caution against widespread attacks against Russia proper. You'd have a real chance of things going full rodeo and ending up with folks lobbing nuclear weapons at each other. I doubt even Hillary and her ilk want an actual war with Russia. Better another profitable cold war. Still stupid and wasteful. Communism has overwhelming been defeated. The remaining 'communist' countries have mutated into mostly other forms of government, generally just oligarchies like China or dictators like Castro or the Jong dynasty. Russian nationalism or Slavic ethnic solidarity can still be a dangerous thing, I would know as I dealt with it directly, but ideally not the stuff of nuclear warfare.
-
Even IF Russia fully invaded Europe, I'd caution against widespread attacks against Russia proper. You'd have a real chance of things going full rodeo and ending up with folks lobbing nuclear weapons at each other. I doubt even Hillary and her ilk want an actual war with Russia. Better another profitable cold war. Still stupid and wasteful. Communism has overwhelming been defeated. The remaining 'communist' countries have mutated into mostly other forms of government, generally just oligarchies like China or dictators like Castro or the Jong dynasty. Russian nationalism or Slavic ethnic solidarity can still be a dangerous thing, I would know as I dealt with it directly, but ideally not the stuff of nuclear warfare.
I normally agree with you Rev, but thanks to my crazy in-laws I know several generations of State Dept folks, and have gotten to have dinner with several of "her ilk". I think they DO want war with Russia. They, at least the one's I've talked to, have no idea what Russia is like, think it's a broken down bannana republic-ish failed state led by a Bond villain who only lusts for power. And they seem to be wholly unwilling to listen to the folks whose job it is to know better.
I think that she thinks we could get in a war with Russia and keep it contained to Syria and Eastern Europe, and use it to stoke fires of increased government power and more money for the Clinton Foundation.
-
^^^
That and as long gone as she can get Vladimir to only nuke "flyove country deplorables" it's a win-win for her.
-
I normally agree with you Rev, but thanks to my crazy in-laws I know several generations of State Dept folks, and have gotten to have dinner with several of "her ilk". I think they DO want war with Russia. They, at least the one's I've talked to, have no idea what Russia is like, think it's a broken down bannana republic-ish failed state led by a Bond villain who only lusts for power. And they seem to be wholly unwilling to listen to the folks whose job it is to know better.
I think that she thinks we could get in a war with Russia and keep it contained to Syria and Eastern Europe, and use it to stoke fires of increased government power and more money for the Clinton Foundation.
Oh, trust me, I am well aware that the State Department is rarely in touch with reality and actively opposed to the best interests of the United States. I am aware of how much they backed (and continue to back) Clinton. The State Department had dozens of people looking to get papers declassified and were trying to cut deals with other agencies to get it accomplished. I'm aware that they have no idea how countries actually operate, even if it means State department employees get hacked up or ripped apart by angry mobs in third world countries.
We dumped hundreds of billions of dollars down the sewer that is Iraq. Probably trillions when you count all the long term expenses and whatnot. We gained very little in return. You could try to argue Hussein was a threat to the world rather than a stabilizing factor for the region. Both were arguably partially true and partially false. Invading Russia would be ten times as expensive. That assumes we actually shred the patronage system and completely redo our entire federal acquisition regulations, redo how we spend our defense dollars, etc. If not, occupying Russia would be so expensive there would be no way for the US to afford it.
Russians aren't some backwards third world country. They're the ones that ARM the backwards third world countries with their surplus and outdated weapons. The military knows this. Any soldier shot with a Dragonov, had their HMMWV blown up with an RPG, had their MRAP flipped by semtex or Russian artillery shells. Faced with by a thousands times as many actually competent opposition with significant newer variants of those weapons? Oh, with more nuclear weapons than us. Good luck. Every soldier in the US understands this. Clinton may be insane enough to think a limited direct war with Russia is possible, no one else involved does.
-
Depending on how Trump addresses it, I think the Democrats drumming war talk is not a winner with the voters. Again, depends on how Trump deals with it.
-
Because like gwb you can see into his heart.
It's pretty simple to see him for what he is, there is no need to over-analyze the guy. He's just a former KGB type that wants to restore the old soviet empire without some of the communist trappings. And he wants to be in charge of it all.
And at the end of the day, Russia reflects Putin's own bellicosity.
-
Even IF Russia fully invaded Europe, I'd caution against widespread attacks against Russia proper.
At this point, Russia invading Western Europe might be the only thing that saves Western Europe from them from themselves...
-
The establishment is still beating the war drums about Russia.
There is a blog post I read where it was suggested that the anti Russia vs friendly relations argument is really a CIA vs NSA conflict, with the CIA viewing Russia as an enemy.
Myself, I really don't know what to think regarding Russia.
-
The establishment is still beating the war drums about Russia.
There is a blog post I read where it was suggested that the anti Russia vs friendly relations argument is really a CIA vs NSA conflict, with the CIA viewing Russia as an enemy.
Myself, I really don't know what to think regarding Russia.
I suggest that we consider russia as a rational country looking out for the interest of russians.
Others, not so much...
http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-latest-conspiracy/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/07/tillerson-might-be-the-worst-one-on-trumps-list/?utm_term=.ef9e9b7ca8fa
Plus, remeber that russia does not uh, bend over for the lgbtbbqfingnuts lobby, so it is a big target in world war g and world war t.
-
China has a big presence in Mexico, central and south America. Not military of course but they have vested interests they would want to protect.
Truth. My late wife was from Chile and I visited there many times while she was alive. Most of South America does orders of magnitude more trade with China than they do with the U.S.
-
"Truth. My late wife was from Chile and I visited there many times while she was alive. Most of South America does orders of magnitude more trade with China than they do with the U.S."
I've been on my soapbox for years wondering why we continue to nebnose the Middle East and in the meantime we have the entire Western Hemisphere to be cordial with, trade with, encourage friendship with. We have neglected that in the interest of the drug business and propping up dictators while China does there what we do in the ME.
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7854/trump-i-hope-putin-hacked-hillarys-emails-media-ben-shapiro
Old, but some interesting points therein.
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7854/trump-i-hope-putin-hacked-hillarys-emails-media-ben-shapiro
Old, but some interesting points therein.
Same guy mentioned a few other incidents where dems were okay with backdoor ruskie stuff:
http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2016/12/12/oof-ben-shapiro-reminds-democrats-of-3-times-they-were-aok-with-russians-intervening-in-elections/
-
"Truth. My late wife was from Chile and I visited there many times while she was alive. Most of South America does orders of magnitude more trade with China than they do with the U.S."
I've been on my soapbox for years wondering why we continue to nebnose the Middle East and in the meantime we have the entire Western Hemisphere to be cordial with, trade with, encourage friendship with. We have neglected that in the interest of the drug business and propping up dictators while China does there what we do in the ME.
One comment I heard earlier this year was talking about China foreign policy. The guy said you don't see China's govt getting involved much in countries around the world. However, you see Chinese companies and trade involved all over the place. The guy thought the US Govt and military needed to pull back while encouraging our companies in business abroad. I think part of that is the US tax and regulatory burden on it's companies is so high that becomes more difficult and encourages our companies to relocate.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp569%2Fjackstraw4449%2Fclinton_coal_zpssywwjwdm.png&hash=625ed345f7f8638b5aab66609e5763692d9a6c07) (http://s1156.photobucket.com/user/jackstraw4449/media/clinton_coal_zpssywwjwdm.png.html)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp569%2Fjackstraw4449%2Fclinton_coal_zpssywwjwdm.png&hash=625ed345f7f8638b5aab66609e5763692d9a6c07) (http://s1156.photobucket.com/user/jackstraw4449/media/clinton_coal_zpssywwjwdm.png.html)
West virginians more like.
-
One comment I heard earlier this year was talking about China foreign policy. The guy said you don't see China's govt getting involved much in countries around the world. However, you see Chinese companies and trade involved all over the place. The guy thought the US Govt and military needed to pull back while encouraging our companies in business abroad. I think part of that is the US tax and regulatory burden on it's companies is so high that becomes more difficult and encourages our companies to relocate.
That's not really a fair comparison, because when Chinese companies go somewhere -- they buy it. China hasn't set up any manufacturing in Chile (my wife's native country), for example -- for the simple reason that Chileans earn more than Chinese workers, so it's cheaper for the Chinese to make *expletive deleted*it in China and then sell it in Chile -- and that's what they do. What U.S. industry needs is a somewhat level playing field so we can get back to making stuff here and selling it there.
The other problem is that Chinese "companies," in many instances, ARE the Chinese government.
-
My favorite part of all of this is the thought that the Russians revealing OUR politicians as scum is somehow a Bad Thing..