The new cold war

This threadis for discussion of the "new cold war ", between russia and the usa , any updates wil be appreciated
http://nytimes.com/2014/09/19/world/europe/poland-wants-united-nations-to-limit-russias-influence.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimesworld&_r=0&referrer=
for instance that , so come join in discussion and updates for the new cold war[url][/url]

First update http://en.delfi.lt/lithuania/economy/russia-detains-lithuanian-fishing-vessel.d?id=65894796
[urlhttp://news.sky.com/story/1338586/british-fighter-jets-intercept-russian-planes][/url]
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum?CMP=twt_gu

Another cold war won't begin; at least not in the way we remember it. At worst it will be economic races, and at that, it's unlikely. There is no division of "first world capitalist countries" against "second world socialist countries" with economies because the world is far too globalized that such a division would cause devastation to both sides. Politicians care a lot about money; they won't risk it, especially after the "Great recession" the world is in due to unintelligent risk-taking.

Honestly, I'm not even sure if that's a bad thing for a competitive economic "cold war". The competition would drive both sides to modernize their economies beyond belief, and especially with China making moon landings with rovers and a US incline in space activity, another space race could ensue.

With China and US, China really is only a deterrent in the east to keep the US from making global decisions with no one to stop them, similar to Russia. Both sides are there to balance each other out. Not only this, but China is completely dependent on western economies, none more so than the US, and wouldn't jeopardize that. Sure, in the unlikely event a new cold war starts up,. it would be very minuscule proxy wars and claims of land(such as the South China Sea claims would get more heated, but certainly no heavy militarism or wars starting).

I wouldn't get your hopes up on a new cold war, economic or, especially, militaristic. Economic competition, yes, but no huge dividers of economies like there was mid-20th century.

>talks about plane getting shot down in iraq while flying over russia is safe
>malaysian airlines

Scritto da Pheonixking929, 20.09.2014 at 07:45

>talks about plane getting shot down in iraq while flying over russia is safe
>malaysian airlines

that's ukraine

Scritto da Guest, 20.09.2014 at 10:52

Scritto da Pheonixking929, 20.09.2014 at 07:45

>talks about plane getting shot down in iraq while flying over russia is safe
>malaysian airlines

that's ukraine

but according to Tito, ukraine is apart of russia hence the reason of the civil war (is it correct to call it that now?)

Scritto da Pheonixking929, 20.09.2014 at 11:35

Scritto da Guest, 20.09.2014 at 10:52

Scritto da Pheonixking929, 20.09.2014 at 07:45

>talks about plane getting shot down in iraq while flying over russia is safe
>malaysian airlines

that's ukraine

but according to Tito, ukraine is apart of russia hence the reason of the civil war (is it correct to call it that now?)

As in Ukrainians are the same people... and the civil war was going on before the plane was shot down...

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 20.09.2014 at 05:23

Scritto da Aleph One, 19.09.2014 at 23:22

Another cold war won't begin; at least not in the way we remember it. At worst it will be economic races, and at that, it's unlikely. There is no division of "first world capitalist countries" against "second world socialist countries" with economies because the world is far too globalized that such a division would cause devastation to both sides. Politicians care a lot about money; they won't risk it, especially after the "Great recession" the world is in due to unintelligent risk-taking.

Honestly, I'm not even sure if that's a bad thing for a competitive economic "cold war". The competition would drive both sides to modernize their economies beyond belief, and especially with China making moon landings with rovers and a US incline in space activity, another space race could ensue.

With China and US, China really is only a deterrent in the east to keep the US from making global decisions with no one to stop them, similar to Russia. Both sides are there to balance each other out. Not only this, but China is completely dependent on western economies, none more so than the US, and wouldn't jeopardize that. Sure, in the unlikely event a new cold war starts up,. it would be very minuscule proxy wars and claims of land(such as the South China Sea claims would get more heated, but certainly no heavy militarism or wars starting).

I wouldn't get your hopes up on a new cold war, economic or, especially, militaristic. Economic competition, yes, but no huge dividers of economies like there was mid-20th century.

West is already making mistake and cold war didnt even started yet. They are making economical mistakes, so i guess schools like Harvard, Oxford and others doesnt worth a dime as they western powers cant calculate the loss and gain from sanctions.

EU sanctioned Russia with food, now Europeans suffer and lose money as Russia was large food market, europeans go bankrupt and their government and banks doesnt compensate them, they will soon not be able to repay bank debts, they will lose homes, businesses and EU will probably end up like Greece.
In the other hand, Russia cant import food from EU now, but they can from Serbia(their northern regions have most fertile land on the world), Turkey(large food producer), Brazil(ship transports already on the way to russias market, they will make billions). So conclusion is, EU is losing money, Russia doesnt feel the difference, and Brazil is making billions, EU made mistake and they wont admit, their people are suffering, if those people raise voice, eu police will oppress them.

Second crucial mistake; EU airlines sanction Russia, that mean they wont land on russian airports, do business with Russia, and they will avoid russian airspace. French airlines already calculated the loss and heres what they did: airline with 300 passengers cost the airline company 30,000$ to fly from Paris to Tokyo, when they flew over Russia they get to Tokyo for 6 hours and they made profit from transporting those passengers. Now when they sanctioned Russia, they cant use russian vast airspace, they have to fly over Iraq, where is danger to get shot down by islamists, they have to land in Tehran to refuel/change plane, another muslim country who hates europe, and then use chinas airspace to get to their destination, which mean they have to spend 50,000$. That mean instead making $20 million profit anually, they will lose $35 million every year, in one decade they will lose $350 million and flying ticket to ordinary man will cost more. And they have to fly 10 hours instead 6, very smart.

If you keep calculating, you will see how West is not capable of waging economic warfare, China will eat them alive in economic cold war. West will try to compete in arms, as they lack economic competiviness. So we can expect more conflicts like Irak, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Ukraine. Next war i predict is Bosnia, as there live muslims and serbs who waged 3 wars in the past 100 years, they cant live together. Then Serbia as their northern regions have hostile hungarians and south have hostile muslims, serbs cant even go to these regions, when police enter, riots start. Then Greece and their albanian minority, then Bulgaria and their turkish minority, then France and their muslim minority, then Germany and their muslim minority. Reason doesnt matter, some will say they want more autonomy, others want independence, others will say they want more rights etc.

But the point is West will use their large weapon factories to produce and sell guns, which will backfire and buyers will use that weapon in their backyard. That mean Russia and China will have the opportunity to interfere, send troops 'peacekeeping forces' while West is fighting insurgents and they wont be able to fight on two fronts. Then red button will probably work. We were 100% sure russians woulnt use nukes in cold war, as they were silent, but americans tested nukes every year, one year(1995) they shot nuke near northern russian border, Russia had red alert and had the right to fire nukes back, but it didnt. Lets see when West start to lose will they use nuclear weapons.

If you could give me a source of that nuclear launch, it would be appreciated. Only known thing for nuclear tests in 1996 was the test ban treaty, which both USA AND China both signed but havent ratified. So, it's not like the USA is doing tests on their own against the treaty when they haven't even ratified it, nor has a good portion of the "east".

When it comes to the ukrainian crisis, there is a lot of diplomatic and economic talks being made to deescalate the situation, but even if they fail and the situation remains like it is, it's not like it will cause the next few decades to be full of strife. It is a crisis that will cause some bad business in areas, but it's actually been predicted that the sanctions being imposed are going to harm Russia more than Europe, with an estimation of Europe's GDP increasing by 1% at the end of the year(http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/hurt-putin-hurt if you're interested in the source). So all of that is pretty much non-sense, especially by saying that Airlines SANCTIONED Russia. That hasn't and won't happen; what WILL happen is if there are energy sanctions, that RUSSIA will respond with closing it's airspace. I'll agree with the statistics you have on calculating the amount of cost to fly from Paris to Tokyo, but since that currently hasn't and won't happen by EU, it doesn't matter much yet. Not to mention that being isolationist doesn't help a country, considering the economy of the US back before WWII being isolationist and North Korea's economy being an isolationist state today.

Let's not act like this whole thing will divide the world, make anarchy in either side, or cause human collapse. This will only cause either economic competition(which, referring to my other post, doesn't sound all too bad and might actually be somewhat beneficial) or will not cause anything but narrower relations among the east and west, which will take more leaders of the West AND East who want to finally make a excellent relations between eachother(if Germany was able to achieve such good relations with Russia before the crisis, it can be done).

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 20.09.2014 at 17:00

Scritto da Aleph One, 20.09.2014 at 14:58

If you could give me a source of that nuclear launch, it would be appreciated. Only known thing for nuclear tests in 1996 was the test ban treaty, which both USA AND China both signed but havent ratified. So, it's not like the USA is doing tests on their own against the treaty when they haven't even ratified it, nor has a good portion of the "east".

When it comes to the ukrainian crisis, there is a lot of diplomatic and economic talks being made to deescalate the situation, but even if they fail and the situation remains like it is, it's not like it will cause the next few decades to be full of strife. It is a crisis that will cause some bad business in areas, but it's actually been predicted that the sanctions being imposed are going to harm Russia more than Europe, with an estimation of Europe's GDP increasing by 1% at the end of the year(http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/hurt-putin-hurt if you're interested in the source). So all of that is pretty much non-sense, especially by saying that Airlines SANCTIONED Russia. That hasn't and won't happen; what WILL happen is if there are energy sanctions, that RUSSIA will respond with closing it's airspace. I'll agree with the statistics you have on calculating the amount of cost to fly from Paris to Tokyo, but since that currently hasn't and won't happen by EU, it doesn't matter much yet. Not to mention that being isolationist doesn't help a country, considering the economy of the US back before WWII being isolationist and North Korea's economy being an isolationist state today.

Let's not act like this whole thing will divide the world, make anarchy in either side, or cause human collapse. This will only cause either economic competition(which, referring to my other post, doesn't sound all too bad and might actually be somewhat beneficial) or will not cause anything but narrower relations among the east and west, which will take more leaders of the West AND East who want to finally make a excellent relations between eachother(if Germany was able to achieve such good relations with Russia before the crisis, it can be done).

Sure, here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

Dont get confused because it say 'norwegian', US government use other names to cover their operations, probably smart, but coward move. Russians had a right to launch nuke back and retaliate. None could accuse Russia of starting WWIII then, because they were replying.

Indeed, there are 'talks' to deescalate the situation, but only talks, there arent efforts to calm the situation, infact they are heating up the crisis by sanctioning Russia. Lets not forget EU was first to sanction RF, Russia just replied with packet of sanctions, they didnt started. You will see in many world events that Russia is always second, never first, Russia always reply, never start.

And why did they sanction Russia, if russians in Ukraine rebelled against ukrainian government? Why is that Russian Federation fault? Thats like americans in Mexico rebel against mexican government and we sanction United States. I dont see logic in it. I only see excuse/pretext to blame Russia and eventually have pretext to invade and colonize Russia as it was intended in the 90's.

EU excuse/reason to sanction Russia is 'because they annexed Crimea and invade Ukraine'. So if there is invasion and war, you think you can stop it by sanctioning sock producer in Siberia? That insult my intelect and honor, and you?

Wouldnt be better, if there is invasion, to reply by force, use troops and fight, simple. Ukraine isnt in NATO, so that would be tricky to cover up why NATO fight on ukrainian side, Russia didnt fought on Iraki side in 1991/2003 or Syrian side in 2011.

Lets go more into ukrainian events, Yanukovich was legally elected by majority of ukrainian populace to be ukrainian president. He was forcefully removed from position and if he didnt fled he would be lynched. Coup was organized and made by Right Sector, they are notorious ukrainian nationalist/nazis, and they are on power now. Dont you think we all should react to that event and not fund them? Why is USA and EU funding Nazi state? Why do they support them in killing unarmed civilians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector

Crimea seceded and got independence from that new nazi state, as they dont want to be part of fascist country. Then they hold referendum whether to stay independent or join Russian Federation, there wasnt option to retun to nazi state, logic doesnt allow that, why would anyone want to go to nazi state and die? Crimeans are russians and tatars, and russians and tatars are nazi enemies in Ukraine, so they cant live in peace there, thats why they seceded, that was normal and good for them, now they are protected and safe from war and crisis. Dont you agree?

You claimed that a nuke was fired at Russia and then the article you provide us with clearly states that it was not a nuke, classic Tito

Scritto da Guest, 20.09.2014 at 14:26

Scritto da Pheonixking929, 20.09.2014 at 11:35

Scritto da Guest, 20.09.2014 at 10:52

Scritto da Pheonixking929, 20.09.2014 at 07:45

>talks about plane getting shot down in iraq while flying over russia is safe
>malaysian airlines

that's ukraine

but according to Tito, ukraine is apart of russia hence the reason of the civil war (is it correct to call it that now?)

As in Ukrainians are the same people... and the civil war was going on before the plane was shot down...

i didnt realize i said the civil war happened after the plane was shot down o.0

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 20.09.2014 at 17:00

Scritto da Aleph One, 20.09.2014 at 14:58

If you could give me a source of that nuclear launch, it would be appreciated. Only known thing for nuclear tests in 1996 was the test ban treaty, which both USA AND China both signed but havent ratified. So, it's not like the USA is doing tests on their own against the treaty when they haven't even ratified it, nor has a good portion of the "east".

When it comes to the ukrainian crisis, there is a lot of diplomatic and economic talks being made to deescalate the situation, but even if they fail and the situation remains like it is, it's not like it will cause the next few decades to be full of strife. It is a crisis that will cause some bad business in areas, but it's actually been predicted that the sanctions being imposed are going to harm Russia more than Europe, with an estimation of Europe's GDP increasing by 1% at the end of the year(http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/hurt-putin-hurt if you're interested in the source). So all of that is pretty much non-sense, especially by saying that Airlines SANCTIONED Russia. That hasn't and won't happen; what WILL happen is if there are energy sanctions, that RUSSIA will respond with closing it's airspace. I'll agree with the statistics you have on calculating the amount of cost to fly from Paris to Tokyo, but since that currently hasn't and won't happen by EU, it doesn't matter much yet. Not to mention that being isolationist doesn't help a country, considering the economy of the US back before WWII being isolationist and North Korea's economy being an isolationist state today.

Let's not act like this whole thing will divide the world, make anarchy in either side, or cause human collapse. This will only cause either economic competition(which, referring to my other post, doesn't sound all too bad and might actually be somewhat beneficial) or will not cause anything but narrower relations among the east and west, which will take more leaders of the West AND East who want to finally make a excellent relations between eachother(if Germany was able to achieve such good relations with Russia before the crisis, it can be done).

Sure, here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

Dont get confused because it say 'norwegian', US government use other names to cover their operations, probably smart, but coward move. Russians had a right to launch nuke back and retaliate. None could accuse Russia of starting WWIII then, because they were replying.

Indeed, there are 'talks' to deescalate the situation, but only talks, there arent efforts to calm the situation, infact they are heating up the crisis by sanctioning Russia. Lets not forget EU was first to sanction RF, Russia just replied with packet of sanctions, they didnt started. You will see in many world events that Russia is always second, never first, Russia always reply, never start.

And why did they sanction Russia, if russians in Ukraine rebelled against ukrainian government? Why is that Russian Federation fault? Thats like americans in Mexico rebel against mexican government and we sanction United States. I dont see logic in it. I only see excuse/pretext to blame Russia and eventually have pretext to invade and colonize Russia as it was intended in the 90's.

EU excuse/reason to sanction Russia is 'because they annexed Crimea and invade Ukraine'. So if there is invasion and war, you think you can stop it by sanctioning sock producer in Siberia? That insult my intelect and honor, and you?

Wouldnt be better, if there is invasion, to reply by force, use troops and fight, simple. Ukraine isnt in NATO, so that would be tricky to cover up why NATO fight on ukrainian side, Russia didnt fought on Iraki side in 1991/2003 or Syrian side in 2011.

Lets go more into ukrainian events, Yanukovich was legally elected by majority of ukrainian populace to be ukrainian president. He was forcefully removed from position and if he didnt fled he would be lynched. Coup was organized and made by Right Sector, they are notorious ukrainian nationalist/nazis, and they are on power now. Dont you think we all should react to that event and not fund them? Why is USA and EU funding Nazi state? Why do they support them in killing unarmed civilians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector

Crimea seceded and got independence from that new nazi state, as they dont want to be part of fascist country. Then they hold referendum whether to stay independent or join Russian Federation, there wasnt option to retun to nazi state, logic doesnt allow that, why would anyone want to go to nazi state and die? Crimeans are russians and tatars, and russians and tatars are nazi enemies in Ukraine, so they cant live in peace there, thats why they seceded, that was normal and good for them, now they are protected and safe from war and crisis. Dont you agree?

Thank you for the link. I think you confused trajectory with location. It had the "arc that was capable of reaching North Dakota to Moscow", not landing near the Russian border. It was launched at such a high-altitude that Russians could detect it and it seemed like a Trident missile, which was known to have the ability to be launched from a submarine to attack. That's why they were on high-alert. Besides that, it was a research rocket(Sounding rocket), and not an actual nuclear rocket.

On the sanctioning thing, countries and companies HAVE the exclusive power to make the decisions of where their money will flow, and have the entitlement to sanction a country in one industry or more if they don't support it, similar to you "sanctioning" a child pornography store because you do not agree with it's ethics and morals(sorry it's a drastic example, it's just I don't want to offend your views on anything by condemning them in my perspective).

When it comes to diplomatic talks, there are many being held over the ukrainian subject, for example, the G7 summits and UN talks. On ukraine, it is not Russia's fault that they wanted to rebel from the government which owns them, correct. But that wasn't what happened. The government which ruled was supported by Russia, the Yanukovich one. Then rebels made a coup and other parts of the country did not like it. However, they did not request a referendum to secede, and by that time, Russia was seen moving into Crimea, and only after that event, did the Crimeans want a referendum to secede. That puts the blame of not only causing the secession on Russia(because they directly influenced the will to vote) but also an illegal one, since it has to be approved by the ruling government. You could argue Yakunovich was the ruling legitimate government in exile, and that the "new one" is a pseudo-government. But if that's the case, then all of the countries who had their original governments sacked by rebels(China, Britain, Germany, etc.) were illegitimate governments, even if they won of the battlefield. That is why Russia is blamed for instigating an already delicate situation.

Lastly, there is a good reason why militarism shouldn't be used to occupy or enforce things. You get results like the occupation of the Sudetenland by Germany in '38. And just as how you do not appreciate fascism, which undoubtedly means you hate the Nazis, shows that you would be against using militarism as foreign policy. If you can persuade and manipulate without using lives and capital, then you are obviously going to be remembered as a hero and a better leader, and that's what leaders these days try to do, however, their success on this concept varies.

Aleph while i like your posts, you clearly see things through the eyes of an American.We, the European people, have shit to do with Ukraine.Thats your war again.Again.Its all part of the Jewmerica versus Putin and we want nothing to do with it.Do it alone and leave us out.There is nothing for Europe to gain over this, theres only loss.But no, our politician dogs had to sanction Russia, to follow Usa masters like the loyal dogs they are.To be honest im surprised at Merkel.I knew british government is shit, but i really thought Merkel was smart.I was wrong.Just another sold out bitch.
The EU sanctions on Russia is just plain stupid.And you know, you can make the comparison and debate who will loose more in the end, Russia or US/EU if you are an American, yes i can understand that.But you cannot and should NOT, when you are a European and you know why?Cause we simply dont care how much Russia will loose.We are not at war with Russia.We dont care.We are not imperialistic like the Usa, we do not want to conquer the world and we couldnt give more shits if Russia will be weakened or not.Europe is a coalition of countries, that should focus only on the stability,peace and prosperity of its own countries and nothing else.In the end Europe will loose from this.And the Russian airspace ban will happen.Oh be sure about that.Hell if i was Putin i would have done it already, it makes sense.In the end another shitty decision by the EU added to the collection.Thats great..