Ah, so the argument is that she "wants" a war with Russia. Ok. Trump doesn't. OK. Well, fact is, unless NATO dissolves, there's a mutual defense pact. So, it'd be Russia against NATO. In fact, that why there are regular NATO games. It's understandable that Europeans feel that Hillary (and most of their own politicians) are hawkish or eager to use military force. Otoh, most of those who like Trump see him as a "strongman" who wouldn't be reluctant to use force, even nukes. Trump derides Clinton (and Obama) as weak. But, whatever.
Nobody would win a WW3, btw. Trump asks why we have nukes if we won't use them. But, that was the point: mutually assured destruction: MAD. Consequently, by "war" I would suspect that the Russians are talking about conflicts in proxy states. I.e., we (the US) would supply weapons to people who were in the way of Russian interests. Yes, it could be a good deal for us to allow Russia to regain all the territory lost after the breakup of the USSR. As you say, what will the Poles say? I also think it important to remember that Britain, France, Germany, Holland, etc., are our NATO allies. What if they decide that something Russia does is too much, while Trump is pres?
That said, I don't think that it's necessary for Russia to be an enemy. It is a competitor. Putin is promoting his interests, not those of the US, ever. And his interests may or may not align with ours --without us being evil.
Btw, in the past 3 years, the strongest advocates for Syrian no-fly zones were the Republicans, specifically John McCain.
Aw shoot, I forgot. Trump is not fond of NATO. Hmmm.
Last edited by Steve James
on Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."