|
Majorian posted:No question, but they still do acknowledge it as a possibility. So are they wrong? They acknowledge it as a possibility in the same way that the world's nuclear power plants exploding is acknowledged as a possibility: a possibility practically identical to 0, and in no way a main focus of their operations.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Majorian posted:My thoughts exactly. Radiological terrorism is something that I think we're a lot more likely to see in our lifetimes, and the thing that's a real pain about it is that so many people misunderstand basic things like radioactivity and how it affects the human body. You'd probably see some mass panic, and a major strain upon public health programs. Because the most plausible scenario to me is Pakistan managing to covertly hand off a small and simple fission bomb to a terrorist group who then somehow ship it to the US and I don't think its possible for that to go unnoticed. First, you're going to have at least 100 people in on the conspiracy and God only knows how many Pakistani military leaders are on the CIA's payroll in one form or another. Second this is the country that we have so many goddamn drones flying over the citizens have PTSD when it isn't overcast, the intelligence resources we have in the countries that are possible sources for materials is just ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Fishmech: The IAEA clearly seems to view it as a considerably more likely possibility than you do, though. So again, are they wrong? I'm not going to get into a slapfight with you, but I would like a straight answer on this.Raskolnikov38 posted:Because the most plausible scenario to me is Pakistan managing to covertly hand off a small and simple fission bomb to a terrorist group who then somehow ship it to the US and I don't think its possible for that to go unnoticed. Why does it have to be the US, though? Why not India, or some other place that terrorists don't like? Some place easier to smuggle a weapon into than the US? Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Should the name Fishmech mean anything to me? I don't know how back this feud of yours goes but for people that are not in on it referring to people by names other than their forum name only makes following the thread even more confusing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Should the name Fishmech mean anything to me? I don't know how back this feud of yours goes but for people that are not in on it referring to people by names other than their forum name only makes following the thread even more confusing. Nintendo Kid. Hambilderberglar posted:Why? Russia has no business being in the EU. Not then, not now and not in the future. The political dimension of that project goes a lot further than making Russia happy. As A Buttery Pastry helpfully pointed out, the financial implications alone make it an extremely unattractive and expensive prospect. Second of all, there's really not a single class or group of countries in the EU that I can identify as being supportive of this idea. What's Russia supposed to do then? Even somehow completely on their own they manage to economically recover without help from the EU or the IMF and the US they still seemingly can never get into the 'cool kids club' despite everything; because of apparently a few decades of history when the Germans, British and French are in despite centuries of prior history. Just accept being doomed to eventually fall under Beijing's economic influence? Slowly Deindustrialize as the lack of a planning economy can no longer maintain their heavy industry above their natural levels? Their only hope to remaining relevant is to bundle their influence with some sort of supranational authority. I personally don't buy the argument that the US couldn't have sold an economic aid package to Congress, the Marshall Plan involved economic aid to Germany almost immediately post World War II didn't it? I feel like any serious economic aid package to help Russia restructure gradually would have been preferable to the history that eventually unfolded, the EU, the US, the IMF all together should have been able to scrap something together to allow the avoidance of shock therapy and selling off of state assets wholesale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The IAEA clearly seems to view it as a considerably more likely possibility than you do, though. No, kid, they don't seem to. They say it's a very tiny probability but they regard it as really dangerous if it were to happen. But they've got very little to do with actually stopping it or providing resources to stop it, which speaks volumes. Majorian posted:Why does it have to be the US, though? Why not India, or some other place that terrorists don't like? Some place easier to smuggle a weapon into than the US? India is far more likely, which is still barely likely at all, to be nuked by the Pakistani state itself rather than anything else. Raenir Salazar posted:the Marshall Plan involved economic aid to Germany almost immediately post World War II didn't it? Uh, 1948 ain't exactly almost immediately, and it was done in order to resist Soviet influence in "our" parts of Europe as much as anything else. It also notably involved offering money to the Soviets as a matter of being fair, who refused it. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Can anybody else see that the IAEA says it's a greater than zero possibility? It's not just me, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Can anybody else see that the IAEA says it's a greater than zero possibility? It's not just me, right? You're the only one obsessing on it and claiming they think it's very likely, brah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Nintendo Kid. I know who he's referring to, I just don't understand why he makes sure to mention the word "Fishmech" in every reply instead of calling him by his name and what relevance it might have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Not what I'm arguing, brah. Anybody else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're the only one obsessing on it and claiming they think it's very likely, brah. He's not? Where does he say this? He says the possibility is possible and that makes arms control regimes inherently worthwhile even if the chance is small and unlikely because the consequences are very bad even if the chances are very small.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I know who he's referring to, I just don't understand why he makes sure to mention the word "Fishmech" in every reply instead of calling him by his name and what relevance it might have. Noted troll. It was very, very stupid of me to get sucked into this discussion with him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Can anybody else see that the IAEA says it's a greater than zero possibility? It's not just me, right? Can you link the page where they say that, going through your post history in this thread I could only find this tidbit "From January 1993 to December, 2013, sixteen incidents involved high enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium." Which then goes on to say that of those 16, only two or three involved anything more than a few grams.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:He's not? Where does he say this? He says the possibility is possible and that makes arms control regimes inherently worthwhile even if the chance is small and unlikely because the consequences are very bad even if the chances are very small. It's possible, so is everyone's hair turning red. So is an asteroid hitting earth tomorrow. It's not a possibility worth actively worrying about because the probability is indistinguishable from 0. Majorian posted:Noted troll. It was very, very stupid of me to get sucked into this discussion with him. I'm not a troll, people are just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Can you link the page where they say that, going through your post history in this thread I could only find this tidbit Sure, here. Sorry, should have specified. e: Now that I'm home and not posting on my phone, here's the link to the actual piece. Operative quote: quote:These risks are real and current, but they are not all the same. While the probability of a nuclear explosive device being acquired and used by terrorists is relatively small, it cannot be dismissed, and the consequences would be devastating. On the other hand, a dirty bomb would likely have far less impact in terms of human life, but the relative accessibility of radiological sources make it more likely that such an event could occur. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What's Russia supposed to do then? Even somehow completely on their own they manage to economically recover without help from the EU or the IMF and the US they still seemingly can never get into the 'cool kids club' despite everything; because of apparently a few decades of history when the Germans, British and French are in despite centuries of prior history. Just accept being doomed to eventually fall under Beijing's economic influence? Slowly Deindustrialize as the lack of a planning economy can no longer maintain their heavy industry above their natural levels? Their only hope to remaining relevant is to bundle their influence with some sort of supranational authority. I don't believe the EU would continue existing if a country with the population, territory and military of Russia would be admitted. You'd get a NAFTA-like dynamic in which the dominant party is the one setting the tone for the entire organization. The heavyweight will not be predisposed toward pooling sovereignty, because they can do whatever the gently caress they like anyway, the knock on effect is that any smaller or less influential members will not want to contribute too much to a project that they feel marginalizes them. End result? You're back where you were, except with a now largely useless layer of bureaucracy that neither the small nor the large want to be part of. quote:I personally don't buy the argument that the US couldn't have sold an economic aid package to Congress, the Marshall Plan involved economic aid to Germany almost immediately post World War II didn't it? quote:I feel like any serious economic aid package to help Russia restructure gradually would have been preferable to the history that eventually unfolded, the EU, the US, the IMF all together should have been able to scrap something together to allow the avoidance of shock therapy and selling off of state assets wholesale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:Russia doesn't have some god-given right to remain on the world map, or being a relevant country while it does so though. Nor does it have some innate "right" to EU membership. Well, but the fact of the matter is, it has remained on the world map, and it has remained a relevant country thanks to its huge nuclear arsenal and energy exports. (not to mention its permanent vote on the UNSC) The question that Western politicians considered, or should have been considering, in the 90's, was, "What can we do to make Russia a state that is friendly to its neighbors and cooperative with us?" I don't feel like they gave enough attention to this question; rather, they naively assumed that Francis Fukuyama was right and we had reached "the end of history." Now Europe and Russia would cooperate with the US' interests, because capitalism had won the war of ideology. Russia, as a democracy, would not go to war with its neighboring democracies, and it would be cooperative with our interests, because our interests were so manifestly well-intentioned. The problem is, these assumptions didn't exactly pan out. Now, it seems clear to me that we ought to have given more thought to how to integrate Russia into the Western world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's possible, so is everyone's hair turning red. So is an asteroid hitting earth tomorrow. You know we spend money to search the sky specifically for this reason ja? Virtually every space agency in the world does so, do you also believe this to be a waste of time and we shouldn't bother?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You know we spend money to search the sky specifically for this reason ja? Virtually every space agency in the world does so, do you also believe this to be a waste of time and we shouldn't bother? We sure don't spend much money for preventing impact though. Or recovery afterwards. And hell, much of the sky remains barely checked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We sure don't spend much money for preventing impact though. Or recovery afterwards. And hell, much of the sky remains barely checked. So they're different now? You're the one that put nonproliferation efforts as "analogous" to in probability to an asteroid hitting us, and yet, its also a possibility we do spend money on to at least detect; but once it turns out that's the case they're suddenly two very different situations? Proceed governor. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You're the one that put nonproliferation efforts as "analogous" to in probability to an asteroid hitting us Nope, child, I put a successful terrorist nuclear attack as similar in probability to an asteroid hitting us tomorrow. Try again. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:I have also yet to hear anyone tell me what the supposed upside is to having Russia as a member state of the EU. Further peace and collective security, the further demiliterizing of Russia as they no longer feel the need to maintain a military as a sign of great power status; Russia itself produces a very large number of engineers and highly educated individuals who I imagine would be great for the further technological advancement and innovation in the European market. Cheap labour for a time, more leverage when dealing with Arab states (because Russia will be less disposed or in fact disallowed to subordinate its energy industry to purely Russian national interest), reduced tensions as Ukraine and Russia likely won't be in dispute over the fate of Sevastopol; greater access to the Russian domestic market for European goods; preferential foreign investment treatment similar to the Chinese special economic zones? Russia having a dominant voice doesn't have to be bad anymore than France or Germany having a dominant voice already does; or the USA having a dominant voice in NAFTA. You just guide the process along so by the time it does happen Russia is thoroughly Europeanized to the point where its voice is still broadly representative of European intrastate interests. The point is, Russia having a proportional say doesn't have to happen immediately, and can easily be guided along until its effectively earned and clearly to the benefit of Europe. Keeping Russia out otherwise becomes literally an act of FYGM pique. Nintendo Kid posted:Nope, child, I put a successful terrorist nuclear attack as similar in probability to an asteroid hitting us tomorrow. Try again. You argument is (1) We should not spend money on preventing a nuclear proliferation by non-state actors because the probability of it happening is "essentially zero". However (2) you then claim that the probability of it happening is the same as "an asteroid hitting us." to support (1) (Equivalency) However (3) You then claim that the money we spend in regards to detecting in advance "an asteroid hitting us" is fundamentally different to (1). This is a contradiction in your premise of steps (1) and (2). I graciously accept your concession and look forward to the next argument on something completely different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:
No. It is not. Not my fault you have trouble comprehending sentences though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No. It is not. Not my fault you have trouble comprehending sentences though. I don't know why you keep bringing up a topic we clearly discussed and you conceded out of man. This was like, forever ago, just let it go man. Just let it go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't know why you keep bringing up a topic we clearly discussed and you conceded out of man. What topic is that, guy who apparently has no idea what I'm arguing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What topic is that, guy who apparently has no idea what I'm arguing? It was a long time ago man, words were said, feelings got hurt on both sides, our family hasn't recovered since then, why won't you stop tearing this family apart. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No. It is not. Not my fault you have trouble comprehending sentences though. Nintendo Kid posted:Nah, there's a 0 chance and the future will absolutely show it never happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I know who he's referring to, I just don't understand why he makes sure to mention the word "Fishmech" in every reply instead of calling him by his name and what relevance it might have. Raenir Salazar posted:Further peace and collective security, the further demiliterizing of Russia as they no longer feel the need to maintain a military as a sign of great power status; Russia itself produces a very large number of engineers and highly educated individuals who I imagine would be great for the further technological advancement and innovation in the European market. Cheap labour for a time, more leverage when dealing with Arab states (because Russia will be less disposed or in fact disallowed to subordinate its energy industry to purely Russian national interest), reduced tensions as Ukraine and Russia likely won't be in dispute over the fate of Sevastopol; greater access to the Russian domestic market for European goods; preferential foreign investment treatment similar to the Chinese special economic zones?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Germany (alone, now that France has pretty much let Germany take the reigns) has a dominant and deleterious voice in the EU presently, and Germany is a state with a decades long tradition of democracy, which had its nationalism beaten right out of it, right in the heart of Europe. There's absolutely no reason to believe Russia wouldn't likewise have dominated the EU to the point that the EU policy would be centered around the national interests of Russia rather than the EU as a whole. I think one factor you're missing here is that Russia was really, really economically weak during the 90's. They would have bent over backwards to get into the EU, and probably would have agreed to strong mechanisms that could keep Russia from playing too many games with their energy advantages. While I'm sure it would have had a substantial amount of pull over the EU, I doubt they would have occupied a bigger space than Germany. Quite frankly, they probably would have acted as a pretty useful counterbalance to the Germans. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think one factor you're missing here is that Russia was really, really economically weak during the 90's. They would have bent over backwards to get into the EU, and probably would have agreed to strong mechanisms that could keep Russia from playing too many games with their energy advantages. While I'm sure it would have had a substantial amount of pull over the EU, I doubt they would have occupied a bigger space than Germany. Quite frankly, they probably would have acted as a pretty useful counterbalance to the Germans. I think that is wishful thinking all things considered, they may not have overtaken the German economy completely but between their military, population (and amount of MEPs) and influence over neighboring states they very possibly could dominant the EU. If anything you might have seen a supercharged version of the sort of patronage system Putin has already in place. It it is something along with NATO non-expansion I don't think would have ever happened. I think the best you could have hoped for was an economically stronger but maybe more politically moderate Russia that would work with the West (but still dominant the former Soviet Union).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
All possible, although for Russia to have an economy that strong that quickly, I think a lot of stars would have had to align perfectly in Russia's favor. I still maintain that we handled the integration of Russia about as poorly as we could have, though. Any thoughts on the nuclear terrorism issue by the way? I'd be interested in getting more perspectives in here. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The problem is, these assumptions didn't exactly pan out. Now, it seems clear to me that we ought to have given more thought to how to integrate Russia into the Western world. How? Economic support for infrastructure and education projects? Increased cooperation in transit? VISA waiver programs? Administrative councils? Blank checks? Rejection of Baltic States' access to EU?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
The EU isn't the United Nations, I have always been in favor of greater economic ties with Russia as a way to give them a stake in peace but come on man, think about it. How much did it cost to bring the RDA up to notch? You're really saying the EU was somehow at fault for not bailing out Russia? How do you pretend to sell that to the public? That was never going to be on the table. Economically speaking Turkey would be much closer to joining the EU than Russia. But that's not even the problem, the problem ironically is that Russia is never going to want to let go of their sphere of influence. What happens to all the ex-USSR countries? Are they left on the outside looking in? Do they join this new EAU? Will the West also have to bring them up to notch? Who is going to control these huge borders up to EU standards? Who is going to pay for all this? This poo poo ain't Europa Universalis, you can't just keep adding territory and have everything work out as long as you keep a few units in the new provinces. And peasants here do care where their tax money is spent. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
At least Putin knows how to let everyone know that he is well, there is nothing like putting the Northern Fleet on alert to let everybody know that you still have the finger on the button. (Though in all fairness, this will have been planned for some time.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Further peace and collective security, the further demiliterizing of Russia as they no longer feel the need to maintain a military as a sign of great power status; Russia itself produces a very large number of engineers and highly educated individuals who I imagine would be great for the further technological advancement and innovation in the European market. Cheap labour for a time, more leverage when dealing with Arab states (because Russia will be less disposed or in fact disallowed to subordinate its energy industry to purely Russian national interest), reduced tensions as Ukraine and Russia likely won't be in dispute over the fate of Sevastopol; greater access to the Russian domestic market for European goods; preferential foreign investment treatment similar to the Chinese special economic zones? That's not even counting Russian public opinion. This is the country that is still annoyed with its diminished status in international relations. What about that would suggest that they are in any way willing to accept their freedom of action being curtailed even further to placate the EU's fears and to fit into its structures as an equal All I've seen so far from Russia is gazprom histrionics about the requirement to unbundle infrastructure and an unwillingness to participate in the EaP because it doesn't view it as an equal partnership (read: Russia isn't treated preferentially). If that's the sort of behaviour we can expect we're better off without them. I'm also puzzled as to why, if these Russian educated individuals are so imminently useful and innovative, why none of this innovation has taken place in Russia yet? Is there something that's in the water in the EU that makes people more capable of innovation? quote:Russia having a dominant voice doesn't have to be bad anymore than France or Germany having a dominant voice already does; or the USA having a dominant voice in NAFTA. You just guide the process along so by the time it does happen Russia is thoroughly Europeanized to the point where its voice is still broadly representative of European intrastate interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but the fact of the matter is, it has remained on the world map, and it has remained a relevant country thanks to its huge nuclear arsenal and energy exports. (not to mention its permanent vote on the UNSC) The question that Western politicians considered, or should have been considering, in the 90's, was, "What can we do to make Russia a state that is friendly to its neighbors and cooperative with us?" I don't feel like they gave enough attention to this question; rather, they naively assumed that Francis Fukuyama was right and we had reached "the end of history." Now Europe and Russia would cooperate with the US' interests, because capitalism had won the war of ideology. Russia, as a democracy, would not go to war with its neighboring democracies, and it would be cooperative with our interests, because our interests were so manifestly well-intentioned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:I agree with all of this with one caveat. I think the assumption that we can be friendly with every nation smacks of exactly the end of history thinking that you rightfully point out as being not very realistic. I'm not saying we can or should be friends with each and every nation, though. What I am saying is that states need to be thoughtful and deliberate when forming their friendships and alignments. Remember, Russia is not just "every nation." It's a huge country, a nuclear weapons state, a P5 vote on the Security Council, a large economy, and a major energy supplier. The fact that we valued the friendship of states like Poland or Estonia at a higher premium during the 90's was a little bit short-sighted, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think one factor you're missing here is that Russia was really, really economically weak during the 90's. They would have bent over backwards to get into the EU, and probably would have agreed to strong mechanisms that could keep Russia from playing too many games with their energy advantages. While I'm sure it would have had a substantial amount of pull over the EU, I doubt they would have occupied a bigger space than Germany. Quite frankly, they probably would have acted as a pretty useful counterbalance to the Germans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm not saying we can or should be friends with each and every nation, though. What I am saying is that states need to be thoughtful and deliberate when forming their friendships and alignments. Remember, Russia is not just "every nation." It's a huge country, a nuclear weapons state, a P5 vote on the Security Council, a large economy, and a major energy supplier. The fact that we valued the friendship of states like Poland or Estonia at a higher premium during the 90's was a little bit short-sighted, IMO. If Washington wants Warsaw's support on an issue that is important to them all that really has to happen is Barack Obama gets on the phone with Poland, Poland falls over itself to reassure Washington that it is totally on board with whatever proposal is happening, perhaps offering up some token concerns so as not to appear to be rolling over. But in the end, Warsaw and Tallinn vote as Washington wishes them to do so. I doubt that dynamic would be quite so tilted in Washington's favour when dealing with Moscow. At that point, why bother with Moscow? Just spend that money on bribing its erstwhile allies. You might not get around a P5 veto but you can drag political wins out of it and erode Russia's position by isolating them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:I can see how that makes sense. Russia's friendship will invariably be more costly than the friendship of a nation like Poland or Estonia precisely because they have a P5 vote, nuclear weapons, a large territory and economy and a major energy supplier. They have all these levers to piss in people's cheerios indefinitely. Any concessions we are likely to extract from them will be expensive and hard-fought. Well, but they didn't have to be. My point is that we could have "bought low" in the 90's. But we kind of half-assed it, and unfortunately, we were pretty obvious about half-assing it. That obviously didn't endear us to them. And our interests do dovetail with theirs on a lot of issues. You think they aren't as concerned with Islamist terrorism as we are? Or that their government isn't apprehensive about the rise of China? (even if, as we've established in this thread, China doesn't seem like it's going to take an aggressive foreign policy anytime soon) A Buttery Pastry posted:Perfect counterbalance to the Germans? Given that it took Russia actively waging a war of conquest before Germany started moving into the neutral/slightly anti-Russian camp, and that Germany is so dependent Russian gas, I think the balance might be skewed enough that Germany ends up falling over to the Russian side. Keep in mind, though, we're talking about an ideal, hypothetical, alternate timeline in which we didn't drive the Russian voting public into the arms of nationalists. I would hope that in that situation, the dynamic between Germany and Russia would be different than it is today. And keep in mind, Germany wasn't exactly in a "pro-Russia camp" before Moscow invaded Ukraine; Merkel's government just knew that it probably wouldn't survive an energy war with Russia. They've been playing a very subtle, careful game out of necessity. Also, it's hard for me to blame the Germans for focusing mainly on the economy when their military is still fairly limited. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:52
|
|