How can two nations be adversaries if....

Post Reply New Topic

How can two nations be adversaries if neither leader views the other as an adversary?

It seems clear, no matter how badly some want It, that Putin doesn't want to be enemies with Trump and Trump doesn't want to be enemies with Putin.

Isn't it the President who decides who we go to war with or not?

Has there ever been a time in history that two countries were enemies when both leaders got along well with each other?

Only congress can declare war in the U.S., the president can send troops into military action but he can't declare war. There's theoretically a 60 day window for congress to declare war or not (War Powers Act, 1973), but since the Iraq invasion the status quo views no action by congress as implicit approval.

As for leaders and how much latitude they have to deal with other nations, that's dependent on what the population will allow. Leaders that ignore the wishes of the populace become unpopular, and unpopular leaders get deposed.

As for Trump's specific situation with Putin, he has almost no leeway. The most he can do as president is reach an agreement on military affairs as commander in chief. Basically if he wants to ally with Russia in Syria and commit U.S. troops to working with Russian troops that's well within his authority. That will never happen because Russia will want something more in return, either an easing of sanctions, a recognition of their claim in Crimea, etc. Those would all require treaties, and any treaty must pass both houses of congress to become law.

The presidency is not a dictatorship or a monarchy, it has very clear and limited powers: the power to oversee the military and other administrative branches, the power to veto legislation by the congress, and the ability to officially negotiate with other nations (but again congress gets right of approval on any treaties from said negotiations). When looking at it's constitutional authority, the presidency is actually very weak compared to congress and the courts and it was intended to be that way because of the paranoia the early Americans had of monarchy. Most modern U.S. presidents have leveraged their popularity ('the bully pulpit') to pressure congress into moving on legislation they prefer, or changing public perception of a case to force the courts movements on the issue. Donald's popularity is not high enough to make those things happen, and his inability to work with the other two branches ensure they're not going to stick their necks out for him, and thus he's our first four year lame-duck president.

We have long feared the influence of Socialist and Communist ideas.

They threaten the "land of the free".

Russia/China/Europe all represent a danger, because their ideas might corrupt impressionable minds.

The fear is that Trump's connection to Putin means he would actually implement some Socialist or Communist idea.

Oh I must have taken all the msm talk about Trump starting a war too literally.

But again, has there been a time when two nations were arch enemy adversaries while at the same time the two leaders got along well with each other?

Putin isn't a socialist of any sort. He's a far-right theocrat.

No, Putin doesn't want America as an enemy: he wants America to be his stooge, and his b*tch, staying out of his way while he expands Russian political and economic power. Unfortunately, Trump either seems just fine with that, or he's too dumb to realize that's Putin's plan.

Well I guess after nearly 20 years in power and turning 65 soon, it's about time he finally gets around to it. btw what leader doesn't want to expand their country politically and economically?

Saudi Arabia might actually be a good example of this.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Most average Americans hate Saudi Arabia, and have good reasons to do so.

Despite this, most people in the American upper class suck up to Saudi Arabia because ... $$$$$$$$$$.

They were Saudis who went counter to the mainstream Wahabbi beliefs.

It was NOT in the best interest of the Saudis to perform the 9/11 deeds. It affects their business interests.

Just like if an American stabbed a Frenchman, it shouldn't be assumed that America is against France.

Putin and Trump might be lovey-dovey----but the interests of Russia and the United States are, in many ways, diametrically opposed to each other.

They were diametrically opposed, even more so than today, in the past.....even though they were allies against the Nazis during World War II.

That becomes a problem when that expansion is at our expense.

It was a payoff to prevent them from being attacked. They might not have done it directly but probably had a role in financing it, they have financed that whole ideology that is the scrouge of the world.

Oh for goodness sake, put the tin-foil hat back on. In case you had not noticed, neither Russia nor China is, from an economic perspective, either socialist or communist anymore. It's now 2017, not the mid-1980's. The Cold War is over. You don't have to "duck and cover" anymore.

The only "plan" that President Vladimir Putin seems to have is to keep his country independent and prosperous. The fact that this goes against the expansionist plans of the United States is just too bad for the U.S.A., because Russia will never be cowed into capitulating. Vladimir Putin may have his many faults (ex. his rather nasty habit of murdering journalists who oppose him), but at least he isn't a traitor like that fool Gorbachev was.

You mean like N.A.T.O. expansion?

http://pickelhering.blogspot.com.au/200 ... chive.html

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=NAT ... ORM=HDRSC2

Can anyone blame Russia for simply defending itself?!

Last I checked, NATO hadn't attacked Russia. But Russia has definitely attacked their immediate neighbors who used to be ruled over by the Russians back in the days of the Soviet Union. If anything, those former east bloc countries asked to join NATO because they have every reason to fear Russian expansion. The Russian claim of being gang upped on is nothing but a pretext for justifying imperialist growth.