Conquer Club

Jeremy Corbyn has hinted that Britain should seek warmer diplomatic relations with Russia as he called for the UK to treat its international opponents with more respect.

With the hard-left MP heading for a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest after a poll put him on 53 per cent of the vote, his policy stances are becoming increasingly important as the prospect of him being the official leader of the Opposition edges closer to reality.

In an interview with the state-run Russia Today TV station, which Mr Corbyn has made favourable remarks towards in the past, he suggested national security would be rethought if he was elected Prime Minister.

Last year, he said that although Russia's behaviour and expansion in Ukraine could not be condoned, nor was it "unprovoked".

He also accused NATO and Europe of fuelling the crisis, and called for a " whole new approach to foreign policy”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 49856.html

Bernie Sanders wrote:Russia's economy is collapsing.

China's economy is fast declining.

Lavrov is just being a good Putin stooge.

Russia and China are both a threat to their neighbors.

Enough said.

Bernie Sanders wrote:Russia's economy is collapsing.

China's economy is fast declining.

Lavrov is just being a good Putin stooge.

Russia and China are both a threat to their neighbors.

Enough said.

GoranZ wrote:Stephen Cohen: Washington an Obstacle to Peaceful Multipolar World

Sarkozy’s Russian fling

Once upon a time, Nicolas Sarkozy was such a fervent admirer of the United States that an American diplomat described him in 2009 as “the most pro-American French president since World War II,” according to a Wikileaks embassy cable.

That version of Sarkozy seems to be lost, replaced by one whose gaze points east. On Thursday, the conservative leader of the “Républicains” party is heading with a small delegation to Moscow, where he will sit down for a face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

A party official traveling with Sarkozy to Moscow described the trip as little more than a courtesy visit to Putin, whom Sarkozy has taken to calling a “friend” since he left office three years ago.

When talking about Russia, the Sarkozy of yore peppered his speeches with warnings about human rights abuses and what he called the “brutality” of Putin’s behavior in asserting his country’s energy policy interests in its region. On his maiden trip to Moscow as head of state in 2007, Sarkozy told a group of students after a tense meeting with Putin that it was “so great to live in a democracy,” and that he wished his audience would one day share that privilege.

Yet that pro-democracy honk has vanished from Sarkozy’s speeches.

As for the United States, a country which Sarkozy has advertised no plans to visit, his tone has turned cold.

“I told [U.S. President Barack Obama] to take good care of the United States and leave Europe to us,” Sarkozy recently told an audience in Limoges, referring to a 2009 conversation about the accession of Turkey to the European Union. “I wanted to give him a lesson in geography.”

In early 2015, Sarkozy defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea, saying that France did not want a resurgence of the Cold War.

Yet Sarkozy, who has met personally with Putin twice after leaving office, but never as head of the Républicains, has stuck to his conciliatory line on Russia, even when it closely echoes the overtly pro-Russian statements of Le Pen.

The two men will discuss the Syrian situation, the fight against ISIL and probably the Russian embargo on European agricultural products. Sarkozy will also address students at a prestigious Moscow university, as part of a trip that his entourage said was set up months ago, before Russia started a bombing campaign in Syria.

http://www.politico.eu/article/sarkozy- ... ed-states/

saxitoxin wrote:The European "Anti-Russia" coalition is America trying to herd cats ...

Sarkozy’s Russian fling

Once upon a time, Nicolas Sarkozy was such a fervent admirer of the United States that an American diplomat described him in 2009 as “the most pro-American French president since World War II,” according to a Wikileaks embassy cable.

That version of Sarkozy seems to be lost, replaced by one whose gaze points east. On Thursday, the conservative leader of the “Républicains” party is heading with a small delegation to Moscow, where he will sit down for a face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

A party official traveling with Sarkozy to Moscow described the trip as little more than a courtesy visit to Putin, whom Sarkozy has taken to calling a “friend” since he left office three years ago.

When talking about Russia, the Sarkozy of yore peppered his speeches with warnings about human rights abuses and what he called the “brutality” of Putin’s behavior in asserting his country’s energy policy interests in its region. On his maiden trip to Moscow as head of state in 2007, Sarkozy told a group of students after a tense meeting with Putin that it was “so great to live in a democracy,” and that he wished his audience would one day share that privilege.

Yet that pro-democracy honk has vanished from Sarkozy’s speeches.

As for the United States, a country which Sarkozy has advertised no plans to visit, his tone has turned cold.

“I told [U.S. President Barack Obama] to take good care of the United States and leave Europe to us,” Sarkozy recently told an audience in Limoges, referring to a 2009 conversation about the accession of Turkey to the European Union. “I wanted to give him a lesson in geography.”

In early 2015, Sarkozy defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea, saying that France did not want a resurgence of the Cold War.

Yet Sarkozy, who has met personally with Putin twice after leaving office, but never as head of the Républicains, has stuck to his conciliatory line on Russia, even when it closely echoes the overtly pro-Russian statements of Le Pen.

The two men will discuss the Syrian situation, the fight against ISIL and probably the Russian embargo on European agricultural products. Sarkozy will also address students at a prestigious Moscow university, as part of a trip that his entourage said was set up months ago, before Russia started a bombing campaign in Syria.

http://www.politico.eu/article/sarkozy- ... ed-states/

From France, to Britain, to Italy, to Finland, every major power in Europe has a pro-Russian opposition party a year or less away from winning elections against an unpopular incumbent government.

The gun America is pointing at Russia today could turn around to point right back at it overnight.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The European "Anti-Russia" coalition is America trying to herd cats ...

Sarkozy’s Russian fling

Once upon a time, Nicolas Sarkozy was such a fervent admirer of the United States that an American diplomat described him in 2009 as “the most pro-American French president since World War II,” according to a Wikileaks embassy cable.

That version of Sarkozy seems to be lost, replaced by one whose gaze points east. On Thursday, the conservative leader of the “Républicains” party is heading with a small delegation to Moscow, where he will sit down for a face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

A party official traveling with Sarkozy to Moscow described the trip as little more than a courtesy visit to Putin, whom Sarkozy has taken to calling a “friend” since he left office three years ago.

When talking about Russia, the Sarkozy of yore peppered his speeches with warnings about human rights abuses and what he called the “brutality” of Putin’s behavior in asserting his country’s energy policy interests in its region. On his maiden trip to Moscow as head of state in 2007, Sarkozy told a group of students after a tense meeting with Putin that it was “so great to live in a democracy,” and that he wished his audience would one day share that privilege.

Yet that pro-democracy honk has vanished from Sarkozy’s speeches.

As for the United States, a country which Sarkozy has advertised no plans to visit, his tone has turned cold.

“I told [U.S. President Barack Obama] to take good care of the United States and leave Europe to us,” Sarkozy recently told an audience in Limoges, referring to a 2009 conversation about the accession of Turkey to the European Union. “I wanted to give him a lesson in geography.”

In early 2015, Sarkozy defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea, saying that France did not want a resurgence of the Cold War.

Yet Sarkozy, who has met personally with Putin twice after leaving office, but never as head of the Républicains, has stuck to his conciliatory line on Russia, even when it closely echoes the overtly pro-Russian statements of Le Pen.

The two men will discuss the Syrian situation, the fight against ISIL and probably the Russian embargo on European agricultural products. Sarkozy will also address students at a prestigious Moscow university, as part of a trip that his entourage said was set up months ago, before Russia started a bombing campaign in Syria.

http://www.politico.eu/article/sarkozy- ... ed-states/

From France, to Britain, to Italy, to Finland, every major power in Europe has a pro-Russian opposition party a year or less away from winning elections against an unpopular incumbent government.

The gun America is pointing at Russia today could turn around to point right back at it overnight.

subtleknifewield wrote:Frankly I'm surprised mrs. hasn't commented on this thread

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

Assuming you are right, and it's no longer a "Unipolar World"... that does not mean the US isn't still the "strongest" nation.

It just means that we can't dominate the World. We can still be the strongest.

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

Assuming you are right, and it's no longer a "Unipolar World"... that does not mean the US isn't still the "strongest" nation.

It just means that we can't dominate the World. We can still be the strongest.

Wrong... Having multiple world powers could mean 2 things(depending on their leadership)
1. Peaceful World: Various conflicts are resolved by respect of mutual interests of the mutual world powers
2. Wars Thorn World: Various conflicts are resolved by force, and depending on the situation one world force will overcome the other(s) in one part of the world and opposite for the other part of the world. Hint: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc...

Generally Multi polar world could be a good thing, more voices will be heard and good solutions will come as result of that, but only if World Powers respect each other, so I would prefer option 1, but that's not up to me.

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

Assuming you are right, and it's no longer a "Unipolar World"... that does not mean the US isn't still the "strongest" nation.

It just means that we can't dominate the World. We can still be the strongest.

Wrong... Having multiple world powers could mean 2 things(depending on their leadership)
1. Peaceful World: Various conflicts are resolved by respect of mutual interests of the mutual world powers
2. Wars Thorn World: Various conflicts are resolved by force, and depending on the situation one world force will overcome the other(s) in one part of the world and opposite for the other part of the world. Hint: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc...

Generally Multi polar world could be a good thing, more voices will be heard and good solutions will come as result of that, but only if World Powers respect each other, so I would prefer option 1, but that's not up to me.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

Assuming you are right, and it's no longer a "Unipolar World"... that does not mean the US isn't still the "strongest" nation.

It just means that we can't dominate the World. We can still be the strongest.

Wrong... Having multiple world powers could mean 2 things(depending on their leadership)
1. Peaceful World: Various conflicts are resolved by respect of mutual interests of the mutual world powers
2. Wars Thorn World: Various conflicts are resolved by force, and depending on the situation one world force will overcome the other(s) in one part of the world and opposite for the other part of the world. Hint: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc...

Generally Multi polar world could be a good thing, more voices will be heard and good solutions will come as result of that, but only if World Powers respect each other, so I would prefer option 1, but that's not up to me.

...and one day Russia may respect it's neighbors, instead of invading them or trying to instigate troubles within them.

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

Assuming you are right, and it's no longer a "Unipolar World"... that does not mean the US isn't still the "strongest" nation.

It just means that we can't dominate the World. We can still be the strongest.

Wrong... Having multiple world powers could mean 2 things(depending on their leadership)
1. Peaceful World: Various conflicts are resolved by respect of mutual interests of the mutual world powers
2. Wars Thorn World: Various conflicts are resolved by force, and depending on the situation one world force will overcome the other(s) in one part of the world and opposite for the other part of the world. Hint: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc...

Generally Multi polar world could be a good thing, more voices will be heard and good solutions will come as result of that, but only if World Powers respect each other, so I would prefer option 1, but that's not up to me.

I never said a Multipolar world was bad... nor did I say an Unipolar one was bad. I never commented on that.

I was simply saying that... OK if we are no longer in an Unipolar world, fine. The USA still has the single strongest army. That doesn't mean we can run roughshod over the world... as there are other Powers. The OP said USA wasn't the strongest country anymore.

GoranZ wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

Assuming you are right, and it's no longer a "Unipolar World"... that does not mean the US isn't still the "strongest" nation.

It just means that we can't dominate the World. We can still be the strongest.

Wrong... Having multiple world powers could mean 2 things(depending on their leadership)
1. Peaceful World: Various conflicts are resolved by respect of mutual interests of the mutual world powers
2. Wars Thorn World: Various conflicts are resolved by force, and depending on the situation one world force will overcome the other(s) in one part of the world and opposite for the other part of the world. Hint: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc...

Generally Multi polar world could be a good thing, more voices will be heard and good solutions will come as result of that, but only if World Powers respect each other, so I would prefer option 1, but that's not up to me.

...and one day Russia may respect it's neighbors, instead of invading them or trying to instigate troubles within them.

Only those that respect the rights of their minorities, others will be overrun, tho you as a blood thirsty American should not tell what others should do

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

Assuming you are right, and it's no longer a "Unipolar World"... that does not mean the US isn't still the "strongest" nation.

It just means that we can't dominate the World. We can still be the strongest.

Wrong... Having multiple world powers could mean 2 things(depending on their leadership)
1. Peaceful World: Various conflicts are resolved by respect of mutual interests of the mutual world powers
2. Wars Thorn World: Various conflicts are resolved by force, and depending on the situation one world force will overcome the other(s) in one part of the world and opposite for the other part of the world. Hint: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc...

Generally Multi polar world could be a good thing, more voices will be heard and good solutions will come as result of that, but only if World Powers respect each other, so I would prefer option 1, but that's not up to me.

I never said a Multipolar world was bad... nor did I say an Unipolar one was bad. I never commented on that.

I was simply saying that... OK if we are no longer in an Unipolar world, fine. The USA still has the single strongest army. That doesn't mean we can run roughshod over the world... as there are other Powers. The OP said USA wasn't the strongest country anymore.

USA doesn't have the strongest army in the world... although it spends much more then the others.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

Assuming you are right, and it's no longer a "Unipolar World"... that does not mean the US isn't still the "strongest" nation.

It just means that we can't dominate the World. We can still be the strongest.

Wrong... Having multiple world powers could mean 2 things(depending on their leadership)
1. Peaceful World: Various conflicts are resolved by respect of mutual interests of the mutual world powers
2. Wars Thorn World: Various conflicts are resolved by force, and depending on the situation one world force will overcome the other(s) in one part of the world and opposite for the other part of the world. Hint: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc...

Generally Multi polar world could be a good thing, more voices will be heard and good solutions will come as result of that, but only if World Powers respect each other, so I would prefer option 1, but that's not up to me.

...and one day Russia may respect it's neighbors, instead of invading them or trying to instigate troubles within them.

Only those that respect the rights of their minorities, others will be overrun, tho you as a blood thirsty American should not tell what others should do

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Lavrov with clear message to US: I know it will hurt, but you are not the strongest in the world

Assuming you are right, and it's no longer a "Unipolar World"... that does not mean the US isn't still the "strongest" nation.

It just means that we can't dominate the World. We can still be the strongest.

Wrong... Having multiple world powers could mean 2 things(depending on their leadership)
1. Peaceful World: Various conflicts are resolved by respect of mutual interests of the mutual world powers
2. Wars Thorn World: Various conflicts are resolved by force, and depending on the situation one world force will overcome the other(s) in one part of the world and opposite for the other part of the world. Hint: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc...

Generally Multi polar world could be a good thing, more voices will be heard and good solutions will come as result of that, but only if World Powers respect each other, so I would prefer option 1, but that's not up to me.

I never said a Multipolar world was bad... nor did I say an Unipolar one was bad. I never commented on that.

I was simply saying that... OK if we are no longer in an Unipolar world, fine. The USA still has the single strongest army. That doesn't mean we can run roughshod over the world... as there are other Powers. The OP said USA wasn't the strongest country anymore.

USA doesn't have the strongest army in the world... although it spends much more then the others.

More NONSENSE from Saxi and his kid brother Goran

http://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-with-strongest-armies/

You have to be a complete idiot or just uneducated to believe any country's military is more powerful than America.